DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Graph Engine vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Graph Engine vs. TinkerGraph

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.

Description

Scalable graph database built for online analytics and data harmonization with MPP scaling, high-performance analytical algorithms and reasoning, and virtualization

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

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Graph DBMS

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

Score	0.23
Rank	#307	Overall
	#24	Graph DBMS
	#13	RDF stores

Score	0.61
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Score	0.08
Rank	#348	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

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

www.graphengine.io

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

Technical documentation

docs.cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph/userdoc/home.htm

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Atos Convergence Creators

Microsoft

Initial release

2018

2016

2010

2009

Current release

2.3, January 2021

1703

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

.NET and C

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

.NET

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

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

SPARQL and SPARQL* as primary query language. Cypher preview.

APIs and other access methods

Apache Mule
gRPC
JDBC
Kafka
OData access for BI tools
OpenCypher
RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL

LDAP

RESTful HTTP API

TinkerPop 3

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

All languages with LDAP bindings

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

Sharding

cell division

horizontal partitioning

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Kerberos/HDFS data loading

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency in MPP-Cluster

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic execution of specific operations

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

optional

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

LDAP bind 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

Recent citations in the news

AnzoGraph review: A graph database for deep analytics
15 April 2019, InfoWorld

Cambridge Semantics Fits AnzoGraph DB with More Speed, Free Access
23 January 2020, Solutions Review

AnzoGraph: A W3C Standards-Based Graph Database | by Jo Stichbury
8 February 2019, Towards Data Science

Back to the future: Does graph database success hang on query language?
5 March 2018, ZDNet

Is The Enterprise Knowledge Graph Finally Going To Make All Data Usable?
19 September 2018, Forbes

provided by Google News

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

provided by Google News

Trinity
2 June 2023, Microsoft

Open source Microsoft Graph Engine takes on Neo4j
13 February 2017, InfoWorld

IBM releases Graph, a service that can outperform SQL databases
27 July 2016, GeekWire

Aerospike Is Now a Graph Database, Too
21 June 2023, Datanami

The graph analytics landscape 2019 - DataScienceCentral.com
27 February 2019, Data Science Central

provided by Google News

Why developers like Apache TinkerPop, an open source framework for graph computing | Amazon Web Services
27 September 2021, AWS Blog

Introducing Gremlin query hints for Amazon Neptune
26 February 2019, AWS Blog

InfiniteGraph Gets Support for Common Graph Database Language and More
21 February 2012, SiliconANGLE News

provided by Google News

Share this page