DBMS > Lovefield vs. openGemini vs. Percona Server for MySQL vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Lovefield vs. openGemini vs. Percona Server for MySQL 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

An open source distributed Time Series DBMS with high concurrency, high performance, and high scalability

Enhanced drop-in replacement for MySQL based on XtraDB or TokuDB storage engines with improved performance and additional diagnostic and management features.

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.22
Rank	#306	Overall
	#138	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#40	Time Series DBMS

Score	2.06
Rank	#118	Overall
	#57	Relational DBMS

Score	103.35
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

google.github.io/lovefield

www.opengemini.org
github.com/openGemini

www.percona.com/software/mysql-database/percona-server

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

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

docs.opengemini.org/guide

www.percona.com/downloads/Percona-Server-LATEST

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Google

Huawei and openGemini community

Percona

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2014

2022

2008

2000

Current release

2.1.12, February 2017

1.1, July 2023

8.0.36-28, 2024

3.46.1 (13 August 2024), August 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

GPL version 2

Open Source

Public Domain

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

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

Implementation language

JavaScript

C and C++

Server operating systems

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

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

Linux
Windows

Linux

server-less

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

Integer, Float, Boolean, String

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

SQL-like query language

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

HTTP REST

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

JavaScript

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Rust

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
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

Triggers

Using read-only observers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication
XtraDB Cluster

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

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

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

Administrators and common users accounts

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.