DBMS > RavenDB vs. SiteWhere vs. VoltDB vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison RavenDB vs. SiteWhere vs. VoltDB vs. Yaacomo

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

M2M integration platform for persisting/querying time series data

Distributed In-Memory NewSQL RDBMS

Used for OLTP applications with a high frequency of relatively simple transactions, that can hold all their data in memory

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Document store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	2.92
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Score	0.06
Rank	#356	Overall
	#35	Time Series DBMS

Score	1.44
Rank	#158	Overall
	#73	Relational DBMS

Website

ravendb.net

github.com/sitewhere/sitewhere

www.voltdb.com

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

ravendb.net/docs

sitewhere1.sitewhere.io/index.html

docs.voltdb.com

Developer

Hibernating Rhinos

SiteWhere

VoltDB Inc.

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2010

2009

Current release

5.4, July 2022

11.3, April 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

Open Source

Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0

Open Source

AGPL for Community Edition, commercial license for Enterprise, AWS, and Pro Editions

commercial

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

Java

Java, C++

Server operating systems

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux
OS X

for development

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

predefined scheme

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language (RQL)

yes

only a subset of SQL 99

yes

APIs and other access methods

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

HTTP REST

Java API
JDBC
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

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

C#
C++
Erlang

not officially supported
Go
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Java

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

based on HBase

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

FOREIGN KEY constraints are not supported

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

ACID

Transactions are executed single-threaded within stored procedures

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Data access is serialized by the server

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Snapshots and command logging

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

Authorization levels configured per client per database

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

Users and roles with access to stored procedures

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

RavenDB Launches Version 6.0 Lightning Fast Queries, Data Integrations, Corax Indexing Engine, and Sharding
3 October 2023, PR Newswire

RavenDB Welcomes David Baruc as Chief Revenue Officer: Seasoned Tech Leader to Drive Global Sales and ...
13 June 2023, PR Newswire

Oren Eini on RavenDB, Including Consistency Guarantees and C# as the Implementation Language
23 May 2022, InfoQ.com

Install the NoSQL RavenDB Data System
14 May 2021, The New Stack

How I Created a RavenDB Python Client
23 September 2016, Visual Studio Magazine

provided by Google News

11 Best Open source IoT Platforms To Develop Smart Projects
9 March 2023, H2S Media

provided by Google News

Unveiling Volt Active Data's game-changing approach to limitless app performance
16 October 2023, YourStory

VoltDB Launches Active(N) Lossless Cross Data Center Replication
31 August 2021, PR Newswire

VoltDB Turns to Real-Time Analytics with NewSQL Database
30 January 2014, Datanami

VoltDB Adds Geospatial Support, Cross-Site Replication
28 January 2016, The New Stack

VoltDB Upgrades Power, Security of Its In-Memory Database
1 February 2017, eWeek

provided by Google News

Share this page