Eh, you're right on some and wrong on many other points. An embedded key-value store can be a good foundation for an RDBMS - or many other data models. The OpenLDAP Project used BerkeleyDB for more than 15 years. BerkeleyDB architects still point to OpenLDAP as a reference standard for transactional BDB code. http://www.bozemanpass.com/services/bdb.html

As the primary author of OpenLDAP's BDB support, and of the LMDB library which now supersedes BDB, I've got quite a deep perspective into this topic.

BDB is deadlock-prone, no argument there. But that doesn't mean the embedded engine approach can't work. LMDB is deadlock-proof, and serves perfectly well as the engine for an RDBMS as well as the engine for a hierarchical DB (X.500/LDAP directory), or arbitrary graphs (http://sph.io/content/2faf , https://github.com/pietermartin/thundergraph , etc...) etc. When you start with a model-less key/value store you can implement any other data model on top.

LMDB's robustness is, in a word, flawless. It's crash-proof by design and multiple independent researchers have borne out the integrity of that design. (https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi14/technical-sessions/... https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi14/technical-sessions/... ) Your assertion that you can't build a robust multi-client system in a lightweight embedded system is flat wrong. In fact, this approach is the only way to get maximum performance from a software system. LMDB is so much faster than every other data management mechanism in existence, nothing else even comes close. http://symas.com/mdb/#bench

Crap tools, crap locking - these are certainly weaknesses in BDB's locking design. LMDB's locking design doesn't have these weaknesses. Querying the size of the DB is an O(1) operation, simply reading a few words out of the DB header.

Underdocumentation - I have no idea what you're talking about here. To me, BDB was copiously documented, and I largely owe my understanding of transactional systems to the BDB documentation. Yes, BDB is complicated and has too many moving parts. LMDB doesn't have this flaw either. But I can't take anyone seriously who says BDB was underdocumented.

C++ interface - I don't use C++, so no comment here.

C >> C++.

SQLite on BDB - yes, it's a joke. I've run it, and the performance is pretty awful. But we do far better. https://github.com/LMDB/sqlightning

There are many positive and negative lessons in software design to be learned from Berkeley DB. It really started life as a test bed, for learning. In that, I think it succeeded admirably. Its authors were able to experiment with extensible hashing, B+trees, ARIES logging, and a multitude of other important software architecture and data management concepts. LMDB owes much of its design to lessons learned from BDB.

LMDB's use of a read-only memory map by default means you can safely allow multi-client access without fearing corruption due to memory bugs. LMDB's exclusive use of mmap instead of complex application-level caching means you avoid all of the horrors of BDB's cache tuning, bloat driving into swap space, and other admin/tuning nightmares. LMDB's crash-proof persistent on-disk format means you don't need to worry about error-prone and inherently unreliable transaction logging mechanisms. All of these features are part of the LMDB design because of our experience working with BDB over the past 15+ years.