DBMS > Amazon Neptune vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. FatDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage

System Properties Comparison Amazon Neptune vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. FatDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage

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.

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

Description

Fast, reliable graph database built for the cloud

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 Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Document store
Key-value store

Wide column store

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

Score	2.29
Rank	#113	Overall
	#9	Graph DBMS
	#5	RDF stores

Score	4.04
Rank	#77	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Website

aws.amazon.com/neptune

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

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

Technical documentation

aws.amazon.com/neptune/developer-resources

Developer

Amazon

Atos Convergence Creators

FatCloud

Microsoft

Initial release

2017

2016

2012

Current release

1703

License

Commercial or Open Source

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

hosted

Linux

Windows

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

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

Via inetgration in SQL Server

APIs and other access methods

OpenCypher
RDF 1.1 / SPARQL 1.1
TinkerPop Gremlin

LDAP

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

RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

C#
Go
Java
JavaScript
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

Triggers

yes

via applications

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-availability zones high availability, asynchronous replication for up to 15 read replicas within a single region. Global database clusters consists of a primary write DB cluster in one region, and up to five secondary read DB clusters in different regions. Each secondary region can have up to 16 reader instances.

yes

selectable replication factor

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

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

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

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

optimistic locking

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

with encyption-at-rest

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

Access rights for users and roles can be defined via the AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM)

LDAP bind authentication

Can implement custom security layer via applications

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

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

Recent citations in the news

Exploring new features of Apache TinkerPop 3.7.x in Amazon Neptune | Amazon Web Services
7 June 2024, AWS Blog

Building NHM London's Planetary Knowledge Base with Amazon Neptune and the Registry of Open Data on AWS ...
5 June 2024, AWS Blog

Unit testing Apache TinkerPop transactions: From TinkerGraph to Amazon Neptune | Amazon Web Services
3 June 2024, AWS Blog

AWS Weekly Roundup: LlamaIndex support for Amazon Neptune, force AWS CloudFormation stack deletion, and more ...
27 May 2024, AWS Blog

AWS announces Amazon Neptune I/O-Optimized
22 February 2024, AWS Blog

provided by Google News

Infographic: What makes a Mobile Operator's setup future proof?
10 February 2024, Atos

provided by Google News

Working with Azure to Use and Manage Data Lakes
7 March 2024, Simplilearn

How to use Azure Table storage in .Net
14 January 2019, InfoWorld

How to Use C# Azure.Data.Tables SDK with Azure Cosmos DB
9 July 2021, hackernoon.com

Inside Azure File Storage
7 October 2015, azure.microsoft.com

How to write data to Azure Table Store with an Azure Function
14 April 2017, Experts Exchange

provided by Google News

Share this page