Top 123 Relational Databases
Compare & Find the Best Relational Database For Your Project.
Database | Strengths | Weaknesses | Type | Visits | GH | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Horizontal scalability, Strong consistency, High availability, MySQL compatibility | Complex architecture, Relatively new community support | Relational, NewSQL, Distributed | 163.5k | 37.3k | ||
Distributed SQL, Strong consistency, High availability and reliability | Relatively new technology, Complex to set up | Relational, Distributed, NewSQL | 96.1k | 30.2k | ||
Highly scalable, Multi-model database, Supports SQL | Relatively new in the market, Limited community support | Document, Graph, Relational | 12.5k | 27.5k | ||
Scalability, Efficiency with MySQL, Cloud-native, High availability | Complex setup, Limited support for non-MySQL databases | Distributed, Relational | 15.1k | 18.7k | ||
Git-like version control for data, Facilitates collaboration and branching | Relatively new with limited adoption, Potential performance issues with very large datasets | Relational, Distributed | 30.2k | 18.0k | ||
Excellent time-series support, Built on PostgreSQL | Requires PostgreSQL knowledge, Limited features compared to specialized DBMS | Relational, Time Series | 146.3k | 17.9k | ||
Open-source, Extensible, Strong support for advanced queries | Complex configuration, Performance tuning can be complex | Relational, Object-Oriented, Document | 1.5m | 16.3k | ||
High-performance for time-series data, SQL compatibility, Fast ingestion | Limited ecosystem, Relatively newer database | Time Series, Relational | 32.5k | 14.6k | ||
Runs entirely in the browser, No server setup required, Supports SQL standard | Limited storage capabilities, Dependent on browser resources | Relational, Embedded | 727 | 12.8k | ||
Open-source, Wide adoption, Reliable | Limited scalability for large data volumes | Relational | 3.2m | 10.9k | ||
Distributed SQL, Scalable PostgreSQL, Performance for big data | Requires PostgreSQL expertise, Complex query optimization | Distributed, Relational | 9.7k | 10.6k | ||
Integration with Microsoft products, Business intelligence capabilities | Runs best on Windows platforms, License costs | Relational, In-Memory | 723.2m | 10.1k | ||
Fast query performance, Unified data model, Scalability | Relatively new software | Analytical, Relational, Distributed | 51.9k | 9.0k | ||
Client-side database, Supports SQL-like queries in JavaScript, Optimized for web applications | Limited to client-side usage, No longer actively maintained | Relational, In-Memory | 0.0 | 6.8k | ||
Serverless, Lightweight, Broadly supported | Limited to single-user access, Not suitable for high write loads | Relational, Embedded | 487.7k | 6.7k | ||
Open-source, MySQL compatibility, Robust community support | Lesser enterprise adoption compared to MySQL, Feature differences with MySQL | Relational | 176.4k | 5.7k | ||
Batch processing, Integration with Hadoop ecosystem, SQL-like querying | Not suited for real-time analytics, Higher latency | Distributed, Relational | 5.8m | 5.6k | ||
Lightweight, Embedded support, Fast | Limited scalability, In-memory by default | Relational, Embedded | 61.6k | 4.2k | ||
Scalable distributed SQL database, Handles time-series data efficiently, Native full-text search capabilities | Limited support for complex joins, Relatively new with possible growing pains | Distributed, Relational, Time Series | 304 | 4.1k | ||
High scalability, Fault-tolerant | Relatively new, Limited community support | Distributed, Relational | 6.7k | 4.0k | ||
High performance, Scalability, Flexible architecture | Relatively new, may have fewer community resources | NewSQL, Distributed, Relational | 33 | 1.8k | ||
Robust geospatial data support, Integrates with PostgreSQL | Complexity in learning, Database size management | Geospatial, Relational | 82.5k | 1.8k | ||
High performance, Distributed transactions, Designed for cloud environments | Limited documentation, Smaller community | Relational | 0.0 | 1.4k | ||
Lightweight, Cross-platform, Strong SQL support | Smaller community, Fewer modern features | Relational, Embedded | 48.6k | 1.3k | ||
Enhanced performance, Increased security, Enterprise-grade features | Requires tuning for optimal performance, Community support | Relational | 146.9k | 1.2k | ||
SQL interface over HBase, Integrates with Hadoop ecosystem, High performance | HBase dependency, Limited SQL support | Relational, Wide Column | 5.8m | 1.0k | ||
Scalable, Multi-tenancy, Easy to use APIs | Relatively new, Limited community support | Document, Relational | 7.1k | 921 | ||
Supports multiple data models, Good RDF and SPARQL support | Complex setup, Performance variation | Relational, RDF Stores | 12.3k | 867 | ||
SQL-on-Hadoop, High-performance, Seamless scalability | Complex setup, Resource-heavy | Analytical, Relational | 5.8m | 696 | ||
In-memory database, Competitive read and write speed | Limited persistence, No cloud offering | In-Memory, Relational | 43 | 608 | ||
Lightweight, Pure Java implementation, Embeddable | Limited scalability, Not suitable for very large databases | Relational, Embedded | 5.8m | 346 | ||
Open-source, High availability, Optimized for web services | Limited support outside of C, C++, and Java | Relational | 11.1k | 264 | ||
Confidential computing, End-to-end encryption, High security | Higher overhead due to encryption, Potentially complex setup for non-security experts | Distributed, Relational | 2.0k | 170 | ||
High performance, Extensible architecture, Supports SQL standards | Limited community support, Not widely adopted | Analytical, Relational, Distributed | 5.8m | 135 | ||
1979 | Robust performance, Comprehensive features, Strong security | High cost, Complexity | Relational, Document, In-Memory | 15.8m | 0 | |
1983 | ACID compliance, Multi-platform support, High availability features | Legacy technology, Steep learning curve | Relational | 13.4m | 0 | |
1992 | Easy to use, Integration with Microsoft Office, Rapid application development | Limited scalability, Windows-only platform | Relational | 723.2m | 0 | |
Scalability, Integration with Microsoft ecosystem, Security features, High availability | Cost for high performance, Requires specific skill set for optimization | Relational, Distributed | 723.2m | 0 | ||
1985 | Ease of use, Rapid application development, Cross-platform compatibility | Limited scalability, Less flexibility for complex queries | Relational | 279.7k | 0 | |
2010 | Real-time analytics, In-memory data processing, Supports mixed workloads | High cost, Complexity in setup and configuration | Relational, In-Memory, Columnar | 7.0m | 0 | |
1979 | Scalable data warehousing, High concurrency, Advanced analytics capabilities | High cost, Complex data modeling | Relational | 132.9k | 0 | |
Strong transactional support, High performance for OLTP workloads, Comprehensive security features | High total cost of ownership, Legacy platform that may not integrate well with modern tools | Relational | 7.0m | 0 | ||
1981 | High performance with OLTP workloads, Excellent support for time series data, Low administrative overhead | Smaller community support compared to others, Perceived as outdated by some developers | Relational, Time Series, Document | 13.4m | 0 | |
2012 | High-performance data warehousing, Scalable architecture, Tight integration with AWS services | Cost can accumulate with large data sets, Latencies in certain analytical workloads | Columnar, Relational | 762.1m | 0 | |
1980 | Ease of use, Low resource requirements | Limited scalability, Older technology | Relational | 4.0k | 0 | |
2014 | High availability, Scalable, Fully managed by AWS | Tied to AWS ecosystem, Potentially higher costs | Relational, Distributed | 762.1m | 0 | |
Massively parallel processing, Scalable for big data, Open source | Complex setup, Heavy resource use | Analytical, Relational, Distributed | 27.9k | 0 | ||
1999 | High performance analytics, Simplicity of deployment | Cost, Vendor lock-in | Analytical, Relational | 13.4m | 0 | |
2011 | Fast analytics, Scalable, Operational and analytical workloads | High complexity for certain queries, Learning curve for database administrators | Relational, Columnar | 43.0k | 0 | |
1984 | Small footprint, High performance, Strong security features | Limited modern community support, Lacks some advanced features of larger databases | Relational, Embedded | 357.4k | 0 | |
1984 | Scalable architecture, Comprehensive development tools, Multi-platform support | Proprietary system, Complex licensing model | Relational | 363.4k | 0 | |
1980 | Enterprise-grade features, Robust security, High performance | Less community support compared to mainstream databases, Older technology | Relational | 82.6k | 0 | |
1992 | Embedded database capabilities, Reliable sync technology, Low resource usage | Limited scalability compared to major databases, Slightly dated interface | Relational, Embedded | 7.0m | 0 | |
Lightweight, In-memory capability, Standards compliance with SQL | Limited scalability for very large datasets, Limited feature set compared to larger RDBMS | Relational, In-Memory | 2.6k | 0 | ||
Globally distributed with strong consistency, High availability and low latency | High cost, Limited control over infrastructure | Distributed, Relational, NewSQL | 6.4b | 0 | ||
1994 | High performance for analytical queries, Compression capabilities, Strong support for business intelligence tools | Proprietary software, Complex setup and maintenance | Columnar, Relational | 7.0m | 0 | |
1984 | Comprehensive development platform, Integrated with web and mobile solutions, Easy to use for non-developers | Limited to small to medium applications, Less flexible compared to open-source solutions, Can be costly for large scale | Relational | 38.0k | 0 | |
Enterprise-grade stability, SAP integration, Handles large volumes of data | Lesser known outside SAP ecosystem, Not as flexible as newer databases, Limited community support | Relational | 7.0m | 0 | ||
2004 | Enterprise-grade support and features, Open-source based, High compatibility with Oracle | Can be complex to manage without expertise, More costly than standard open-source PostgreSQL for enterprise features | Relational | 639.8k | 0 | |
2000 | High-speed analytics, Columnar storage, In-memory processing | Expensive licensing, Limited data type support | Relational, Analytical | 9.0k | 0 | |
Supports spatial data types, Lightweight and fully self-contained | Not suitable for large-scale enterprise applications, Limited concurrency | Relational, Geospatial | 2.8k | 0 | ||
2003 | Oracle compatibility, High performance | Limited integration with non-Tibero ecosystems, Smaller market presence compared to leading RDBMS | Relational | 18.6k | 0 | |
1994 | Lightweight, Embedded systems | Obsolete compared to current databases, Limited support and features | Relational, Embedded | 235 | 0 | |
1998 | In-memory, Real-time data processing | Requires more RAM, Not suitable for large datasets | In-Memory, Relational | 15.8m | 0 | |
High scalability, Advanced analytics with embedded machine learning | Cost, Complex configuration | Relational, Analytical | 13.4m | 0 | ||
1993 | Integrates with Erlang/OTP, Supports complex data structures, Highly available | Limited to Erlang ecosystem, Not suitable for very large datasets | Distributed, Relational, In-Memory | 74.1k | 0 | |
2004 | Strong support for Chinese language data, Good for OLAP and OLTP | Limited international adoption, Documentation primarily in Chinese | Relational, Analytical | 15.9k | 0 | |
High Performance, Extensibility, Security Features | Community Still Growing, Limited Third-Party Integrations | Distributed, Relational | 38.2k | 0 | ||
2005 | Embedded Database Capabilities, Ease of Use | Limited to PC SOFT Environment, Less Market Presence Compared to Mainstream DBMS | Embedded, Relational | 51.9k | 0 | |
1984 | Low Maintenance, Integrated Features | Aging Technology, Limited Adoption | Relational, Embedded | 96 | 0 | |
1981 | Rapid Application Development, User-Friendly Interface | Outdated Technologies, Limited Community Support | Relational, Document | 1 | 0 | |
1984 | High Stability, Excellent Performance on Digital Equipment | Niche Market, High Cost of Operation | Relational | 15.8m | 0 | |
1987 | High availability, Fault tolerance, Scalability | Legacy system complexities, High cost | Relational, Distributed | 2.9m | 0 | |
2020 | High availability, Strong consistency, Scalability | Vendor lock-in, Limited third-party support | Relational, Distributed | 13.1m | 0 | |
Cost-effective, Compatible with MySQL, High performance | Complex pricing model | Relational, Distributed | 1.3m | 0 | ||
Advanced analytical capabilities, Designed for big data, High concurrency | Cost can increase with scale | Analytical, Relational | 1.3m | 0 | ||
1999 | Hybrid architecture supporting in-memory and disk storage, Real-time transaction processing | Limited global market penetration, Requires specialized knowledge for optimal deployment | Relational, In-Memory | 833 | 0 | |
2010 | Supports distributed SQL databases, Elastic scale-out with ACID compliance | Not suitable for write-heavy workloads, Complex configuration for optimal performance | Distributed, NewSQL, Relational | 1 | 0 | |
2014 | High performance, Scalable architecture, Supports complex queries | Limited managed cloud options, Proprietary solution | Analytical, Relational, Distributed | 6.0k | 0 | |
High-performance data analysis, PostgreSQL compatibility, Seamless integration with Alibaba Cloud services | Vendor lock-in, Limited to Alibaba Cloud environment | Analytical, Relational, Distributed | 1.3m | 0 | ||
1970s | Proven reliability, Strong ACID compliance | Legacy system, Limited modern features | Relational, Hierarchical | 2.5m | 0 | |
1998 | Embedded database, Small footprint, Easy integration | Limited scalability, Not open-source | Relational, Embedded | 494 | 0 | |
2010 | Handles large-scale data, Accelerates query performance | Resource-intensive, Complex tuning required | Analytical, Columnar, Relational | 9.8k | 0 | |
1992 | High-speed in-memory processing, ACID compliance, Embedded database options | Proprietary technology, Limited community support | In-Memory, Relational | 13.4m | 0 | |
2000 | Cross-platform support, High reliability, Full SQL implementation | Lower popularity, Limited recent updates | Relational | 24 | 0 | |
High reliability, Strong support for business applications | Older technology stack, May not integrate easily with modern systems | Hierarchical, Relational | 631 | 0 | ||
1981 | Established user base, Stable for legacy systems | Outdated technology, Limited community support | Relational | 0 | 0 | |
2003 | High-performance, Embedded database, SQL support | Lack of widespread adoption, Limited cloud support | Embedded, Relational | 3.9k | 0 | |
2014 | HTAP capabilities, Machine Learning | Complex setup, Limited community support | Analytical, Distributed, Relational | 381 | 0 | |
2007 | High compatibility with Oracle, Robust security features, Strong transaction processing | Limited global awareness, Smaller community support | Relational | 87.4k | 0 | |
2004 | Embedded database solution, Easy integration with .NET applications | Limited scalability, Windows platform dependency | Relational, Embedded | 0 | 0 | |
High performance for embedded systems, Real-time data processing | Niche use case focus, Smaller developer community | Relational, Embedded | 899 | 0 | ||
Scalability, PostgreSQL compatibility, High availability | Complex setup, Limited community support compared to PostgreSQL | Distributed, Relational | 133 | 0 | ||
2009 | Database traffic management, Load balancing | Not a database itself but a proxy, Complex deployment | Relational, NewSQL | 0 | 0 | |
2010 | High performance, In-memory database technology, Integration capabilities | Limited market presence, Niche use cases | In-Memory, Relational | 0 | 0 | |
2017 | Scalable transactions, Hybrid transactional/analytical processing | Limited adoption, Complex setup | NewSQL, Distributed, Relational | 0 | 0 | |
2013 | GPU acceleration, Real-time analytics | High hardware cost, Complex integration | Analytical, Relational | 234 | 0 | |
Enterprise-grade security features, Enhanced performance and scalability, Advanced analytics and data visualization | Higher cost for enterprise features, Limited community-driven developments | Relational | 1.8m | 0 | ||
2014 | Designed for continuous aggregation, Integrates with PostgreSQL | Limited to streaming workloads, Small community size | Relational, Streaming, Time Series | 0 | 0 | |
1970 | High concurrency, Embedded support | Limited community, Less popular compared to other relational databases | Relational | 1.2k | 0 | |
1979 | Hybrid data model, Proven reliability | Costly licensing, Complex deployment | Document, Relational, Embedded | 4.8k | 0 | |
2019 | High-speed data processing, Seamless integration with Apache Spark, In-memory processing | Requires technical expertise to manage | Distributed, In-Memory, Relational | 155.6k | 0 | |
Real-time event storage and analytics, Integration with IBM Cloud services | Limited third-party integrations, IBM Cloud dependency | Event Stores, In-Memory, Relational | 13.4m | 0 | ||
2017 | Multi-model database supporting SQL and graphs, Combines relational and graph processing | Solid understanding of SQL and graph databases required, Smaller community support | Graph, Relational | 0 | 0 | |
2010 | High availability, Geographically distributed architecture | Limited market penetration, Complex setup | Distributed, Relational | 0 | 0 | |
1981 | Strong data security, High performance | Proprietary system, Cost | Relational, Embedded | 82.6k | 0 | |
1998 | Cross-platform, Integration with Valentina Studio | Niche market, Limited public documentation | Relational, Document | 9.4k | 0 | |
2015 | SQL support on Hadoop, Scalable, Robust querying | Complex to manage, Requires Hadoop expertise | Relational, Distributed | 88 | 0 | |
2007 | MPP (Massively Parallel Processing) capabilities, High-performance analytics | Proprietary technology, Niche use cases | Analytical, Distributed, Relational | 293 | 0 | |
2008 | Small footprint, Embedded database capabilities | Limited scalability, Less popular than major DBMS options | Embedded, Relational | 494 | 0 | |
2010 | High concurrency, Scalability | Limited international adoption, Complexity in setup | Distributed, Relational | 0 | 0 | |
1987 | Proven reliability, ACID compliant | Proprietary, Lacks modern features | Relational | 115 | 0 | |
2014 | Performance, Supports ACID transactions | Limited adoption, Niche market | In-Memory, Relational, Distributed | 0 | 0 | |
2013 | High performance, Scalability, Integration with big data ecosystems | Less known in Western markets, Limited community resources | Analytical, Distributed, Relational | 0 | 0 | |
2016 | Real-time data processing, Compatibility with multiple data formats | Complex setup, Smaller user community | Distributed, Relational | 0 | 0 | |
2018 | Efficiency in edge computing, Data synchronization | Newer product with less maturity, Limited ecosystem | Embedded, Relational, Document | 4.8k | 0 | |
2004 | Lightweight, Java integration | Limited scalability, Fewer features compared to major SQL databases | Relational | 0 | 0 | |
2007 | High performance, Compression, Scalability | Proprietary, License cost | Analytical, Relational | 0 | 0 | |
2015 | Distributed, Scalability, Fault tolerance | Limited community support, Complex setup | Distributed, Relational | 0 | 0 | |
2015 | Integration with Spatial features, Open-source | Limited support for non-spatial queries, Small community | Geospatial, Relational | 416 | 0 | |
1995 | Strong SQL compatibility, ACID compliance | Niche market focus, Legacy system | Relational | 1.6k | 0 | |
High availability, Strong consistency, Scalable architecture | Proprietary technology, Limited community support | Relational, Distributed | 0 | 0 | ||
Integrates with all Azure services, High scalability, Robust analytics | High complexity, Cost, Requires Azure ecosystem | Analytical, Distributed, Relational | 723.2m | 0 |
Understanding Relational Databases
Relational databases have long held a central position in the world of data management. Since their inception in the 1970s, they have been the backbone for countless applications, from small business systems to large-scale enterprise operations. At the core of a relational database lies the idea of storing data in structured tables, which allows for powerful querying and data manipulation capabilities. Understanding the principles and functionality of relational databases is crucial for anyone working in data-centric fields.
Key Features & Properties of Relational Databases
Relational databases are characterized by several defining features that make them unique and versatile:
-
Structured Data Storage: Data is organized in tables, which consist of rows and columns. Each row in a table is a data record, and each column represents an attribute of that record.
-
Schema-Based Design: Relational databases require a predefined schema, which dictates the structure of data and enforces data integrity and consistency.
-
SQL Query Language: Structured Query Language (SQL) is used to interact with relational databases. It provides a standardized way to perform queries, updates, and management of data.
-
ACID Properties: Transactions in relational databases follow ACID properties (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability) to ensure reliable data processing.
-
Normalization: Normalization is the process of structuring a relational database to reduce data redundancy and improve data integrity.
-
Indexing: Relational databases support indexing to improve the speed of data retrieval operations.
-
Relationships and Keys: Primary and foreign keys are used to define relationships between tables, enabling complex data models.
Common Use Cases for Relational Databases
Relational databases are prevalent in numerous applications due to their reliability and robustness:
-
Business Applications: Enterprises use relational databases for customer relationship management (CRM), enterprise resource planning (ERP), and human resources management.
-
E-commerce: Online retailers use relational databases to manage inventory, transactions, and user data.
-
Financial Services: Banks and financial institutions rely on relational databases for transaction processing and data analysis.
-
Healthcare: Patient records, billing information, and hospital management systems often use relational databases.
-
Education: Universities use relational databases to manage student records, schedules, and course offerings.
Comparing Relational Databases with Other Database Models
Choosing the right database model depends on the specific requirements of an application:
-
Relational vs. NoSQL: While relational databases offer consistency and structured data storage, NoSQL databases provide flexibility and scalability. NoSQL is preferred for unstructured data and large-scale distributed systems.
-
Relational vs. Object-Oriented: Object-oriented databases are aligned with the object-oriented programming paradigm and can store complex data types. They are suitable for applications requiring rich data types and object persistence.
-
Relational vs. In-Memory: In-memory databases, like Redis, store data in RAM for faster retrieval. They are used in scenarios where performance is critical.
Factors to Consider When Choosing Relational Databases
Selecting a relational database involves evaluating multiple factors:
-
Data Volume and Growth: Consider the size of data and expected growth. Relational databases handle moderate to large datasets efficiently.
-
Complex Queries: If your application requires complex querying capabilities, relational databases are a strong choice.
-
Transaction Support: For applications needing reliable transaction processing, relational databases offer robust solutions.
-
Data Consistency: If maintaining data consistency is critical, relational databases provide ACID compliance.
-
Vendor Support and Community: Evaluate the support ecosystem and community engagement for the chosen relational database.
-
Cost and Licensing: Consider the cost of deployment and ongoing licensing fees, which can vary across different relational database systems.
Best Practices for Implementing Relational Databases
Implementing a relational database requires adherence to best practices for optimal performance and reliability:
-
Design Efficient Schemas: Proper schema design is crucial. Consider normalization to minimize redundancy and ensure data integrity.
-
Optimize Queries: Use indexing appropriately and analyze query performance for optimization.
-
Plan for Scalability: Consider potential data growth and design your database to accommodate future scalability needs.
-
Secure Your Data: Implement authentication, authorization, and encryption to ensure data security.
-
Regular Backup and Recovery: Establish regular backup schedules and test recovery processes to prevent data loss.
Future Trends in Relational Databases
The landscape of relational databases is evolving, with new trends shaping their use:
-
Hybrid and Multi-Model Databases: There's a growing interest in databases that combine multiple models, offering both relational and NoSQL capabilities.
-
Cloud-Based Relational Databases: Services like Amazon RDS and Azure SQL Database provide flexible cloud-based solutions with reduced infrastructure overhead.
-
AI and Machine Learning Integration: Incorporating AI capabilities for query optimization and predictive analytics is an emerging trend.
-
Distributed SQL Databases: Distributed SQL databases, like CockroachDB, offer the scalability of NoSQL with the familiarity of SQL.
Conclusion
Relational databases have been a dominant force in data management for decades, known for their structure, reliability, and robust transaction handling. As technology evolves, they continue to adapt, integrating cloud capabilities, AI, and hybrid models. Understanding their features, use cases, and best practices is essential for leveraging their full potential in modern applications.
Switch & save up to 80%Â
Dragonfly is fully compatible with the Redis ecosystem and requires no code changes to implement. Instantly experience up to a 25X boost in performance and 80% reduction in cost