DBMS > Amazon Aurora vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigchainDB vs. Snowflake vs. Yanza

System Properties Comparison Amazon Aurora vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigchainDB vs. Snowflake vs. Yanza

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

Yanza seems to be discontinued. Therefore it is excluded from the DB-Engines Ranking.

Description

MySQL and PostgreSQL compatible cloud service by Amazon

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

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

Time Series DBMS for IoT Applications

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store

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

Score	7.91
Rank	#50	Overall
	#32	Relational DBMS

Score	0.79
Rank	#212	Overall
	#36	Document stores

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora

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

www.bigchaindb.com

www.snowflake.com

yanza.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/CHAP_Aurora.html

bigchaindb.readthedocs.io/en/latest

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Amazon

Atos Convergence Creators

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Yanza

Initial release

2015

2016

2014

2015

Current release

1703

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

AGPL v3

commercial

free version available

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

but mainly used as a service provided by Yanza

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

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

Implementation language

Java

Python

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

hosted

Windows

Data scheme

yes

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

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

schema-free

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

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

LDAP

CLI Client
RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

HTTP API

Supported programming languages

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

All languages with LDAP bindings

Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Python
Ruby

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

any language that supports HTTP calls

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Timer and event based

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

yes

selectable replication factor

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

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

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

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

LDAP bind authentication

yes

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.