The database management systems market has never been so fragmented. The Redgate report “State of Database Landscape 2024” indicates that 79% of companies use at least two different DBMS, with nearly 30% operating more than five. This proliferation of database engines reflects increasingly varied technical needs, ranging from transactional, analytical, to real-time applications.
Multi-model DBMS: the trend that rankings ignore
Most database management software comparisons still present the landscape through the lens of the SQL versus NoSQL duel. This perspective is outdated. Since 2023, several major vendors have been developing engines capable of natively managing relational tables, JSON documents, graphs, and time series within the same system.
You may also like : What is the best bank in France? Comparative guide to offers and services
This multi-model approach aims to combine the robustness of SQL queries with the flexibility of NoSQL structures, without multiplying software components. For data teams, this reduces administrative overhead and limits integration issues between heterogeneous databases. To consult the DBMS ranking on Tech Mafia, the detailed sheets allow for comparing the features of each engine.
The Redgate report confirms this trend: the number of companies using more than two DBMS has increased by 17% in three years. Multi-model DBMS directly address this inflation by consolidating multiple uses into a single tool.
Read also : How to Start and Succeed in the World of Entrepreneurship in 2024
SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL: who dominates the relational landscape
Relational DBMS maintain a dominant position in organizations. According to the Redgate survey conducted among 3,849 CIOs and DBAs across 15 sectors, SQL Server remains the most deployed DBMS in enterprises. MySQL and PostgreSQL complete the top trio, each with a distinct positioning.
MySQL and PostgreSQL: two open-source philosophies
MySQL has established itself in web development due to its ease of deployment and a massive user community. PostgreSQL, on the other hand, targets more demanding use cases: complex queries, strict ACID compliance, extensibility through modules.
Field feedback diverges on the choice between these two engines for high-volume applications. PostgreSQL is gaining ground in analytical projects and environments where the richness of data types matters. MySQL remains a pragmatic choice for classic web applications where read performance is paramount.
SQL Server: anchoring in the Microsoft ecosystem
The resilience of SQL Server is partly explained by its native integration with Azure and Microsoft tools. For companies already engaged in this ecosystem, migrating to another DBMS represents a high transition cost. Performance monitoring, user management, and backup services integrate directly into the existing environment.
Cloud DBMS and DBaaS: growing adoption, open questions
Managed cloud databases (DBaaS) are increasingly appealing to organizations. The model attracts with its promise to reduce administrative overhead: automatic updates, on-demand scalability, integrated replication.
The available data does not yet allow for precise measurement of the share of DBaaS compared to on-premise deployments. However, the Redgate report shows that the diversification of DBMS in enterprises is accelerating, and cloud offerings contribute significantly to this. Each provider (AWS, Azure, Google Cloud) promotes its own database services, adding to the fragmentation.
- Latency criteria: real-time applications require response times that not all DBaaS guarantee equally
- Data portability: migrating from one DBaaS to another or to an on-premise deployment remains complex, with proprietary formats and dependencies on the provider’s APIs
- Cost at scale: usage-based billing can become significantly more expensive than a traditional deployment beyond a certain volume of queries and storage
European Directive 2024/2853: a new selection criterion for DBMS
An angle absent from almost all DBMS rankings concerns regulation. The European directive 2024/2853, adopted on November 13, 2024, extends the liability regime for defective products to software. This directive must be transposed before December 9, 2026.
Specifically, commercial DBMS and DBaaS providers will be subject to enhanced objective liability in the event of software defects affecting data security or integrity. For companies choosing a DBMS in 2024-2025, this directive changes the game on several points:
- Proprietary solution vendors will have to assume direct responsibility in the event of data loss or corruption related to a software bug
- “Related” DBaaS services, whose absence would prevent a product from functioning, fall within the scope of the directive
- Open-source DBMS without commercial support could find themselves in a legal gray area, as liability may not have a clearly identified bearer
This regulatory framework makes the choice between community open-source DBMS and DBMS with commercial support more structuring than before. The contractual guarantee from a vendor becomes a selection criterion in its own right, alongside performance or features.
Technical criteria for choosing a DBMS suitable for your business
Beyond popularity rankings, the choice of a DBMS depends on concrete parameters that are rarely highlighted. The type of queries (short transactional or long analytical), the volume of data, the number of simultaneous users, and availability requirements lead to very different architectures.
A DBMS that performs well in intensive reading is not necessarily good at concurrent writing. PostgreSQL excels at complex analytical queries. Redis, as an in-memory database, meets caching and real-time needs. MongoDB manages schema flexibility for applications where the data structure frequently evolves.
Performance monitoring remains an underestimated topic. Having a monitoring tool suited to the chosen DBMS is crucial for identifying bottlenecks before they affect users. The Redgate report also highlights that the increasing complexity of multi-DBMS environments makes this monitoring harder to centralize.
The DBMS landscape in 2024 is not limited to a fixed ranking. The proliferation of engines per company, the arrival of multi-model architectures, and the impending enforcement of directive 2024/2853 shift the selection criteria. Choosing a DBMS now involves balancing technical performance, operating costs, portability, and legal exposure.