DBMS > Lovefield vs. OrigoDB vs. PlanetScale vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Lovefield vs. OrigoDB vs. PlanetScale vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Scalable, distributed, serverless MySQL database platform built on top of Vitess

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems
Trend Chart

Score	0.33
Rank	#286	Overall
	#131	Relational DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#380	Overall
	#50	Document stores
	#19	Object oriented DBMS

Score	1.49
Rank	#155	Overall
	#72	Relational DBMS

Score	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

google.github.io/lovefield

origodb.com

planetscale.com

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

github.com/google/lovefield/blob/master/docs/spec_index.md

origodb.com/docs

planetscale.com/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Google

Robert Friberg et al

PlanetScale

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2014

2009

under the name LiveDB

2020

2000

Current release

2.1.12, February 2017

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

JavaScript

Server operating systems

server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js)

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

Linux
Windows

Docker
Linux
macOS

server-less

Data scheme

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

XML support

Some form of processing data in XML format, e.g. support for XML data structures, and/or support for XPath, XQuery or XSLT.

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

JavaScript

.Net

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

Using read-only observers

yes

Domain Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

depending on model

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

yes

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

ACID

ACID at shard level

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

yes

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes, by using IndexedDB or the cloud service Firebase Realtime Database

yes

Write ahead log

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

using MemoryDB

yes

User concepts

Access control

Role based authorization

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

More information provided by the system vendor

We invite representatives of system vendors to contact us for updating and extending the system information,
and for displaying vendor-provided information such as key customers, competitive advantages and market metrics.