DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Postgres-XL vs. Prometheus

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Postgres-XL vs. Prometheus

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

Based on PostgreSQL enhanced with MPP and write-scale-out cluster features

Open-source Time Series DBMS and monitoring system

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial 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	0.49
Rank	#256	Overall
	#117	Relational DBMS

Score	8.42
Rank	#47	Overall
	#2	Time Series DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

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

www.postgres-xl.org

prometheus.io

Technical documentation

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

www.postgres-xl.org/documentation

prometheus.io/docs

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Atos Convergence Creators

Initial release

2018

2016

2014

since 2012, originally named StormDB

2015

Current release

2.3, January 2021

1703

10 R1, October 2018

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

commercial

Open Source

Mozilla public 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

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
macOS

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

Numeric data only

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

XML type, but no XML query functionality

Import of XML data possible

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

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

yes

distributed, parallel query execution

APIs and other access methods

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

LDAP

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Erlang
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
Tcl

.Net
C++
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

Sharding

cell division

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

yes

by Federation

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

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

MVCC

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

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

LDAP bind authentication

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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

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

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

provided by Google News

VictoriaMetrics Offers Prometheus Replacement for Time Series Monitoring
17 July 2023, The New Stack

How to reduce Istio sidecar metric cardinality with Amazon Managed Service for Prometheus | Amazon Web Services
10 October 2023, AWS Blog

Linux System Monitoring with Prometheus, Grafana, and collectd
1 February 2024, Linux Journal

Consider Grafana vs. Prometheus for your time-series tools
18 October 2021, TechTarget

My Prometheus is Overwhelmed! Help!
24 July 2021, hackernoon.com

provided by Google News

Share this page