DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. LevelDB vs. XTDB

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. LevelDB vs. XTDB

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

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

A general purpose database with bitemporal SQL and Datalog and graph queries

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Document store

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

Score	0.29
Rank	#303	Overall
	#25	Graph DBMS
	#14	RDF stores

Score	2.25
Rank	#115	Overall
	#19	Key-value stores

Score	0.18
Rank	#332	Overall
	#46	Document stores

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

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

github.com/google/leveldb

github.com/xtdb/xtdb
www.xtdb.com

Technical documentation

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

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

www.xtdb.com/docs

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Atos Convergence Creators

Google

Juxt Ltd.

Initial release

2018

2016

2011

2019

Current release

2.3, January 2021

1703

1.23, February 2021

1.19, September 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

commercial

Open Source

BSD

Open Source

MIT License

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++

Clojure

Server operating systems

Linux

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

All OS with a Java 8 (and higher) VM
Linux

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes, extensible-data-notation format

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.

limited SQL, making use of Apache Calcite

APIs and other access methods

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

LDAP

HTTP REST
JDBC

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

All languages with LDAP bindings

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

Clojure
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

Sharding

cell division

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

yes

none

yes, each node contains all data

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

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed 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, flexibel persistency by using storage technologies like Apache Kafka, RocksDB or LMDB

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 Unveils AnzoGraph DB with Geospatial Analytics
19 June 2020, Solutions Review

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

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

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

provided by Google News

Malicious npm 'colors' typosquats pack Discord malware
3 May 2022, Sonatype Blog

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

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

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

Threat Thursday: BlackGuard Infostealer Rises from Russian Underground Markets
21 April 2022, BlackBerry Blog

provided by Google News

Share this page