DBMS > AlaSQL vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigchainDB vs. SiteWhere vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison AlaSQL vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigchainDB vs. SiteWhere vs. Snowflake

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

Description

JavaScript DBMS library

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

BigchainDB is scalable blockchain database offering decentralization, immutability and native assets

M2M integration platform for persisting/querying time series data

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

Primary database model

Document store
Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.49
Rank	#259	Overall
	#40	Document stores
	#120	Relational DBMS

Score	0.82
Rank	#212	Overall
	#36	Document stores

Score	0.06
Rank	#367	Overall
	#36	Time Series DBMS

Score	123.20
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

alasql.org

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

www.bigchaindb.com

github.com/sitewhere/sitewhere

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

github.com/AlaSQL/alasql

bigchaindb.readthedocs.io/en/latest

sitewhere1.sitewhere.io/index.html

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Andrey Gershun & Mathias R. Wulff

Atos Convergence Creators

SiteWhere

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2014

2016

2010

2014

Current release

1703

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT-License

commercial

Open Source

AGPL v3

Open Source

Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0

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

JavaScript

Java

Python

Java

Server operating systems

server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js)

Linux

Linux
OS X
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

predefined scheme

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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

Close to SQL99, but no user access control, stored procedures and host language bindings.

yes

APIs and other access methods

JavaScript API

LDAP

CLI Client
RESTful HTTP API

HTTP REST

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

JavaScript

All languages with LDAP bindings

Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Python
Ruby

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

based on HBase

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

yes

only for local storage and DOM-storage

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

by using IndexedDB, SQL.JS or proprietary FileStorage

yes

yes,with MongoDB ord RethinkDB

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

LDAP bind authentication

yes

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.