DBMS > 4D vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. LevelDB vs. TigerGraph vs. VelocityDB

System Properties Comparison 4D vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. LevelDB vs. TigerGraph vs. VelocityDB

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

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

Embeddable fast key-value storage library that provides an ordered mapping from string keys to string values

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

A .NET Object Database that can be embedded/distributed and extended to a graph data model (VelocityGraph)

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Graph DBMS

Graph DBMS
Object oriented DBMS

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

Score	2.68
Rank	#110	Overall
	#54	Relational DBMS

Score	2.75
Rank	#107	Overall
	#19	Key-value stores

Score	1.83
Rank	#141	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Score	0.11
Rank	#347	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS
	#15	Object oriented DBMS

Website

www.4d.com

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

github.com/google/leveldb

www.tigergraph.com

velocitydb.com

Technical documentation

developer.4d.com

github.com/google/leveldb/blob/main/doc/index.md

docs.tigergraph.com

velocitydb.com/UserGuide

Developer

4D, Inc

Atos Convergence Creators

Google

VelocityDB Inc

Initial release

1984

2016

2011

2017

2011

Current release

v20, April 2023

1703

1.23, February 2021

7.x

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSD

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

C++

Server operating systems

OS X
Windows

Linux

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

Any that supports .NET

Data scheme

yes

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

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

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

close to SQL 92

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

by using 4D Mobile
SOAP webservices

LDAP

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

.Net

Supported programming languages

4D proprietary IDE
PHP

All languages with LDAP bindings

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

C++
Java

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Callbacks are triggered when data changes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

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

with automatic compression on writes

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

Role-based access control

Based on Windows 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

LevelDB in Ruby — SitePoint
22 October 2014, SitePoint

Microsoft Teams stores auth tokens as cleartext in Windows, Linux, Macs
14 September 2022, BleepingComputer

Pliops unveils XDP-Rocks for RocksDB – Blocks and Files
19 October 2022, Blocks & Files

XanMod, Liquorix Kernels Offer Some Advantages On AMD Ryzen 5 Notebook
26 July 2021, Phoronix

Rust-Based Info Stealers Abuse GitHub Codespaces
19 May 2023, Trend Micro

provided by Google News

New TigerGraph CEO Refocuses Efforts on Enterprise Customers
31 July 2023, Datanami

TigerGraph update adds enterprise-scale capabilities
31 October 2023, TechTarget

TigerGraph Bolsters DB for Enterprise Graph Workloads
1 November 2023, Datanami

Aerospike takes on Neo4j and TigerGraph with launch of graph database
20 June 2023, SiliconANGLE News

TigerGraph partners with Pascal as master distributor for APJ region
10 January 2024, VnExpress International

provided by Google News

Share this page