Pros of FASTER

• Designed for larger-than-memory data, offering better scalability for big data scenarios
• Supports both key-value and log storage, providing more flexibility in data models
• Offers hybrid log-structured storage for improved performance in certain workloads

Cons of FASTER

• Less focus on mobile platforms, potentially limiting its use in mobile app development
• May have a steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• Lacks built-in encryption features, which are important for sensitive data handling

Code Comparison

WCDB (SQL-based):

INSERT INTO users (name, age) VALUES ('John', 30);
SELECT * FROM users WHERE age > 25;

FASTER (Key-Value based):

faster.Upsert(key, value);
faster.Read(key, out value);

Summary

WCDB is a SQLite-based database optimized for mobile platforms, offering strong encryption and ACID compliance. FASTER, on the other hand, is a high-performance key-value store and log designed for larger-than-memory data scenarios. While WCDB excels in mobile app development with its SQL interface and encryption features, FASTER provides better scalability and flexibility for big data applications. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of the project, such as platform, data size, and query complexity.

Pros of RocksDB

• More mature and widely adopted, with extensive documentation and community support
• Highly optimized for SSDs and offers better performance for large-scale data storage
• Supports a wider range of storage engines and customization options

Cons of RocksDB

• Higher complexity and steeper learning curve compared to WCDB
• Larger memory footprint and potentially slower for small-scale applications
• Less focus on mobile-specific optimizations

Code Comparison

WCDB (C++):

WCDB::Database database("path/to/database");
WCDB::Table<Person> table = database.getTable<Person>("person");
table.insert(person);

RocksDB (C++):

rocksdb::DB* db;
rocksdb::Options options;
rocksdb::Status status = rocksdb::DB::Open(options, "path/to/database", &db);
db->Put(rocksdb::WriteOptions(), "key", "value");

Key Differences

• WCDB is specifically designed for mobile platforms, while RocksDB is more general-purpose
• WCDB offers a higher-level API with ORM-like features, whereas RocksDB provides a lower-level key-value interface
• RocksDB focuses on performance and scalability for large datasets, while WCDB prioritizes ease of use and mobile-specific optimizations

Pros of LevelDB

• Lightweight and fast key-value storage engine
• Supports ordered mapping from string keys to string values
• Widely used and battle-tested in various applications

Cons of LevelDB

• Limited support for complex queries and indexing
• Lacks built-in multi-threaded support
• No native SQL interface

Code Comparison

LevelDB:

leveldb::DB* db;
leveldb::Options options;
options.create_if_missing = true;
leveldb::Status status = leveldb::DB::Open(options, "/tmp/testdb", &db);

WCDB:

WCTDatabase *database = [[WCTDatabase alloc] initWithPath:@"/tmp/testdb"];
[database createTableAndIndexesOfName:@"table_name" withClass:YourClass.class];

Key Differences

• WCDB is specifically designed for mobile platforms (iOS and Android), while LevelDB is more general-purpose
• WCDB provides ORM capabilities and supports complex SQL queries, whereas LevelDB is a simpler key-value store
• WCDB offers built-in encryption and multi-threaded operations, features not natively available in LevelDB
• LevelDB has a simpler API and is easier to integrate into projects that don't require complex database operations
• WCDB is based on SQLite and extends its functionality, while LevelDB uses its own storage format

Pros of FoundationDB

• Distributed architecture for high scalability and fault tolerance
• Multi-model database supporting key-value, document, and relational models
• Strong ACID guarantees with serializable isolation

Cons of FoundationDB

• Steeper learning curve due to its distributed nature
• Limited mobile-specific optimizations compared to WCDB
• Requires more resources for deployment and management

Code Comparison

WCDB (SQLite-based):

WCDB::Database database("path/to/database");
WCDB::Table<Person> table = database.getTable<Person>("person");
table.insert(person);

FoundationDB:

@fdb.transactional
def insert_person(tr, person):
    tr['person/' + person.id] = fdb.tuple.pack((person.name, person.age))

db.run(insert_person, person)

Key Differences

• WCDB is optimized for mobile platforms, while FoundationDB is designed for distributed systems
• WCDB uses SQLite as its core, whereas FoundationDB has a custom storage engine
• FoundationDB offers stronger consistency guarantees in distributed environments
• WCDB provides better performance for local, mobile-centric use cases

Both databases have their strengths, with WCDB excelling in mobile applications and FoundationDB shining in distributed, scalable environments.

Pros of Pebble

• Designed for high-performance distributed databases, optimized for CockroachDB
• Written in Go, offering better cross-platform compatibility
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and improvements

Cons of Pebble

• Less focused on mobile platforms compared to WCDB
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with Go
• Lacks some specific optimizations for SQLite that WCDB provides

Code Comparison

WCDB (C++):

WCDB::Database database("path/to/database");
WCDB::Table table = database[@"tableName"];
auto objects = table.getObjects<MyObject>(where("key" == "value"));

Pebble (Go):

db, _ := pebble.Open("path/to/database", &pebble.Options{})
defer db.Close()
value, closer, _ := db.Get([]byte("key"))
defer closer.Close()

Key Differences

• WCDB is primarily designed for mobile platforms, while Pebble targets distributed systems
• WCDB offers tighter integration with SQLite, whereas Pebble is a standalone key-value store
• WCDB provides an ORM-like interface, while Pebble offers a lower-level key-value API
• Pebble is written in Go, making it more suitable for server-side applications, while WCDB (C++) is optimized for mobile devices

Pros of realm-core

• Cross-platform support with native implementations for multiple languages
• Advanced features like real-time synchronization and offline-first capabilities
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of realm-core

• Steeper learning curve due to its unique object-oriented data model
• Larger file size and memory footprint compared to some lightweight alternatives

Code Comparison

realm-core:

auto realm = Realm::get_shared_realm(config);
auto table = realm->read_group().get_table("Person");
auto obj = table->create_object_with_primary_key("Alice");
obj.set("age", 30);

wcdb:

WCDB::Database database("path/to/database");
WCDB::Table<Person> table(database);
Person person;
person.name = "Alice";
person.age = 30;
table.insert(person);

Key Differences

• realm-core uses a unique object-oriented data model, while wcdb follows a more traditional SQL-like approach
• realm-core offers built-in synchronization features, whereas wcdb focuses on local database operations
• wcdb is optimized for mobile platforms, particularly iOS and Android, while realm-core targets a broader range of platforms