DBMS > 4D vs. AnzoGraph DB vs. Apache Jena - TDB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository

System Properties Comparison 4D vs. AnzoGraph DB vs. Apache Jena - TDB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Application development environment with integrated database management system

Scalable graph database built for online analytics and data harmonization with MPP scaling, high-performance analytical algorithms and reasoning, and virtualization

A RDF storage and query DBMS, shipped as an optional-use component of the Apache Jena framework

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
RDF store

RDF store

Document store
Key-value store

DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems
Trend Chart

Score	2.58
Rank	#108	Overall
	#54	Relational DBMS

Score	0.23
Rank	#307	Overall
	#24	Graph DBMS
	#13	RDF stores

Score	3.75
Rank	#84	Overall
	#3	RDF stores

Website

www.4d.com

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

jena.apache.org/documentation/tdb/index.html

atos.net/en/convergence-creators/portfolio/standard-common-repository

Technical documentation

developer.4d.com

docs.cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph/userdoc/home.htm

jena.apache.org/documentation/tdb/index.html

Developer

4D, Inc

Cambridge Semantics

Apache Software Foundation

originally developed by HP Labs

Atos Convergence Creators

Initial release

1984

2018

2000

2016

Current release

v20, April 2023

2.3, January 2021

4.9.0, July 2023

1703

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

Apache License, Version 2.0

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

Java

Server operating systems

OS X
Windows

Linux

All OS with a Java VM

Linux

Data scheme

yes

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

RDF Schemas

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

XML support

Some form of processing data in XML format, e.g. support for XML data structures, and/or support for XPath, XQuery or XSLT.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

close to SQL 92

SPARQL and SPARQL* as primary query language. Cypher preview.

APIs and other access methods

ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

by using 4D Mobile
SOAP webservices

Apache Mule
gRPC
JDBC
Kafka
OData access for BI tools
OpenCypher
RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL

Fuseki

REST-style SPARQL HTTP Interface
Jena RDF API
RIO

RDF Input/Output

LDAP

Supported programming languages

4D proprietary IDE
PHP

C++
Java
Python

Java

All languages with LDAP bindings

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions and aggregates

yes

Triggers

yes

via event handler

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Automatic sharding

none

Sharding

cell division

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

none

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Kerberos/HDFS data loading

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency in MPP-Cluster

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not needed in graphs

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

ACID

TDB Transactions

Atomic execution of specific operations

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

User concepts

Access control

Users and groups

Access rights for users and roles

Access control via Jena Security

LDAP bind authentication

More information provided by the system vendor

We invite representatives of system vendors to contact us for updating and extending the system information,
and for displaying vendor-provided information such as key customers, competitive advantages and market metrics.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

DB-Engines blog posts

MySQL, PostgreSQL and Redis are the winners of the March ranking
2 March 2016, Paul Andlinger

show all

Recent citations in the news

AnzoGraph review: A graph database for deep analytics
15 April 2019, InfoWorld

Cambridge Semantics Unveils AnzoGraph DB with Geospatial Analytics
19 June 2020, Solutions Review

AnzoGraph: A W3C Standards-Based Graph Database | by Jo Stichbury
8 February 2019, Towards Data Science

Back to the future: Does graph database success hang on query language?
5 March 2018, ZDNet

Cambridge Semantics Fits AnzoGraph DB with More Speed, Free Access
23 January 2020, Solutions Review

provided by Google News

Sparql Secrets In Jena-Fuseki - DataScienceCentral.com
24 July 2022, Data Science Central

Are there any Ontology Deployment Framework that can process OWL semantics and allow reasoning?
17 April 2018, ResearchGate

A catalogue with semantic annotations makes multilabel datasets FAIR | Scientific Reports
4 May 2022, Nature.com

MarkLogic Hones Its Triple Store
18 August 2015, Datanami

Comparing Grakn to Semantic Web Technologies — Part 1/3 | by Tomas Sabat
26 June 2020, Towards Data Science

provided by Google News

Share this page