DBMS > Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. SQLite vs. STSdb vs. Vitess

System Properties Comparison Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. SQLite vs. STSdb vs. Vitess

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Database as a Service offering with high compatibility to Microsoft SQL Server

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Key-Value Store with special method for indexing

optimized for high performance using a special indexing method

Scalable, distributed, cloud-native DBMS, extending MySQL

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	77.99
Rank	#16	Overall
	#11	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.04
Rank	#360	Overall
	#52	Key-value stores

Score	0.82
Rank	#209	Overall
	#97	Relational DBMS

Website

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/azure-sql/database

www.sqlite.org

github.com/STSSoft/STSdb4

vitess.io

Technical documentation

docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-sql

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

vitess.io/docs

Developer

Microsoft

Dwayne Richard Hipp

STS Soft SC

The Linux Foundation, PlanetScale

Initial release

2010

2000

2011

2013

Current release

V12

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

4.0.8, September 2015

15.0.2, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

Open Source

GPLv2, commercial license available

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0, commercial licenses available

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

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

server-less

Windows

Docker
Linux
macOS

Data scheme

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

yes

primitive types and user defined types (classes)

yes

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

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

.NET Client API

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

Supported programming languages

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

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

C#
Java

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Transact SQL

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes, with always 3 replicas available

none

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

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

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID at shard level

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.