DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. SiriDB vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. SiriDB vs. SQLite

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

Open Source Time Series DBMS

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Document store
Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.22
Rank	#302	Overall
	#24	Graph DBMS
	#13	RDF stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#40	Time Series DBMS

Score	103.35
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

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

siridb.com

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

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

docs.siridb.com

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Atos Convergence Creators

Cesbit

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2018

2016

2017

2000

Current release

2.3, January 2021

1703

3.46.1 (13 August 2024), August 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Public Domain

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

server-less

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

Numeric data

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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.

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

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

LDAP

HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

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

Sharding

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

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

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

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

simple rights management via user accounts

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.