DBMS > 4D vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. FatDB vs. HugeGraph vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison 4D vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. FatDB vs. HugeGraph vs. Snowflake

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Description

Application development environment with integrated database management system

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

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

A fast-speed and highly-scalable Graph DBMS

Cloud-based data warehousing service for structured and semi-structured data

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	2.58
Rank	#108	Overall
	#54	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#336	Overall
	#32	Graph DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

www.4d.com

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

github.com/hugegraph
hugegraph.apache.org

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

developer.4d.com

hugegraph.apache.org/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

4D, Inc

Atos Convergence Creators

FatCloud

Baidu

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

1984

2016

2012

2018

2014

Current release

v20, April 2023

1703

0.9

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

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

Windows

Linux
macOS
Unix

hosted

Data scheme

yes

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

yes

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

also supports composite index and range index

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

close to SQL 92

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

APIs and other access methods

ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

by using 4D Mobile
SOAP webservices

LDAP

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

Java API
RESTful HTTP API
TinkerPop Gremlin

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

4D proprietary IDE
PHP

All languages with LDAP bindings

Groovy
Java
Python

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

asynchronous Gremlin script jobs

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

via applications

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

depending on used storage backend, e.g. Cassandra and HBase

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication

yes

selectable replication factor

yes

depending on used storage backend, e.g. Cassandra and HBase

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

via hugegraph-spark

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

edges in graph

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

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

LDAP bind authentication

Can implement custom security layer via applications

Users, roles and permissions

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable 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.