SQLE vs Yearning: Detailed Feature, Architecture, and Use‑Case Comparison

1 Introduction

SQLE is a comprehensive SQL quality‑management platform that covers SQL review and management from development to production, supporting many open‑source, commercial, and domestic databases and offering workflow automation to improve release efficiency and data quality. Yearning is a web‑based visual SQL review platform that meets most company needs and adds convenient features such as data query.

Architecture Differences

Both products use a front‑back separation architecture with a Go backend; SQLE’s frontend is built with Node.js + React, while Yearning uses Vue.

Feature Differences

SQLE offers a richer, all‑round set of features as a full‑stack SQL quality‑management platform, whereas Yearning focuses on SQL review plus data query convenience.

2 Comparison

Supported Data Source Types

SQLE

SQLE Professional

SQLE Enterprise

Yearning

MySQL

✅

✅

✅

✅

PostgreSQL

✅

✅

Oracle

✅

✅

SQL Server

✅

✅

DB2

✅

✅

TiDB

✅

✅

✅

Mycat

✅

✅

TDSQL for InnoDB

✅

✅

OceanBase for MySQL

✅

✅

OceanBase for Oracle

✅

✅

DM (达梦)

✅

SQLE supports more than ten mainstream commercial and open‑source databases, but the community edition only supports MySQL; other databases require a professional or enterprise license. Yearning only supports MySQL and MySQL‑compatible databases.

Data Source Differences

SQLE: Supports 10+ major databases; community edition limited to MySQL.

Yearning: Supports MySQL and MySQL‑protocol databases, with SSL connection and database exclusion options.

UI Comparison

The list pages of both tools are similar, offering overview dashboards for tickets and data sources. SQLE places most configuration items on the right side with a global‑settings icon at the lower right, while Yearning puts them on the left, provides dark and light themes, and positions user information at the top right.

Overall, Yearning’s UI layout feels more intuitive to the author, whereas SQLE’s member/permission and user‑center sections can be confusing without consulting the manual.

3 SQL Workbench

SQLE

Yearning

SQL Workbench

Additional CloudBeaver deployment

Built‑in

Result export & SQL beautify

✅

✅

Online DML

✅

Script save

✅

✅ (history)

Field masking

✅

✅

Query audit

✅ (CloudBeaver Enterprise)

✅

Admin interrupt query

✅

✅

SQLE’s workbench offers richer functionality, including online DML, but query audit requires the CloudBeaver Enterprise edition.

4 User Management

SQLE

Yearning

Permission management

✅

✅

Process management

✅

✅

User disable

✅

✅

User group management

✅

✅

Role management

✅

✅

Open user registration

✅

Both tools provide comparable user‑management features, but Yearning’s permission and workflow configuration feels clearer.

5 Ticket Application / Review / Deployment

SQLE

Yearning

DDL review

✅

✅

DML review

✅

✅

DQL review

✅

✅

Rule review

700+ rules (DDL, DML, index standards, etc.)

45 rules (single list)

Large‑table DDL

✅

pt‑online‑schema‑change (auto trigger)

Whitelist

Enterprise only

Automated tasks

Auto‑execute compliant DML‑SQL

Rollback SQL

✅

✅

Execution mode

Scheduled / manual

Scheduled / manual

Both provide DDL, DML, and DQL review, but SQLE’s rule set is far more extensive.

Example

A sample CREATE TABLE statement receives a simple “char → varchar” suggestion from Yearning, while SQLE returns a much richer set of audit results.

6 System Settings

SQLE

Yearning

Message push

Email, DingTalk, Feishu, Enterprise WeChat, Webhook

Email, Webhook

LDAP

✅

✅

Data cleanup

✅

✅

7 Scan Tasks

SQLE

Yearning

Scan tasks

✅ (slow‑log and processlist analysis)

Yearning lacks a scan‑task feature, while SQLE focuses on slow‑SQL analysis and processlist monitoring.

3 Conclusion

For community‑edition users, Yearning offers a better experience for SQL query and audit, making it a good choice for MySQL‑only environments. SQLE Enterprise supports many more databases and provides a richer feature set, making it the recommended solution when you need end‑to‑end monitoring from development through production.