DBMS > Machbase Neo vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. PlanetScale vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Machbase Neo vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. PlanetScale vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

TimeSeries DBMS for AIoT and BigData

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

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

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Time Series DBMS

Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.12
Rank	#339	Overall
	#30	Time Series DBMS

Score	4.48
Rank	#75	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	1.59
Rank	#151	Overall
	#70	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

machbase.com

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

planetscale.com

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

machbase.com/dbms

planetscale.com/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Machbase

Microsoft

PlanetScale

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2013

2012

2020

2000

Current release

V8.0, August 2023

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free test version available

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

Server operating systems

Linux
macOS
Windows

hosted

Docker
Linux
macOS

server-less

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

gRPC
HTTP REST
JDBC
MQTT (Message Queue Telemetry Transport)
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript
PHP

via ODBC
Python
R

via ODBC
Scala

.Net
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

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

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

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

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

yes

Transaction concepts

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

optimistic locking

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

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

volatile and lookup table

yes

User concepts

Access control

simple password-based access control

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

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.