DBMS > Apache Drill vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. SQLite vs. SWC-DB vs. Yanza

System Properties Comparison Apache Drill vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. SQLite vs. SWC-DB vs. Yanza

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Yanza seems to be discontinued. Therefore it is excluded from the DB-Engines Ranking.

Description

Schema-free SQL Query Engine for Hadoop, NoSQL and Cloud Storage

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

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A high performance, scalable Wide Column DBMS

Time Series DBMS for IoT Applications

Primary database model

Document store
Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Wide column store

Time Series DBMS

Secondary database models

Time Series DBMS

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

Score	2.28
Rank	#119	Overall
	#23	Document stores
	#56	Relational DBMS

Score	116.01
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.01
Rank	#387	Overall
	#13	Wide column stores

Website

drill.apache.org

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

www.sqlite.org

github.com/kashirin-alex/swc-db
www.swcdb.org

yanza.com

Technical documentation

drill.apache.org/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Apache Software Foundation

Atos Convergence Creators

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Alex Kashirin

Yanza

Initial release

2012

2016

2000

2020

2015

Current release

1.20.3, January 2023

1703

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

0.5, April 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

Open Source

GPL V3

commercial

free version available

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

but mainly used as a service provided by Yanza

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

Java

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

server-less

Linux

Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

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

SQL SELECT statement is SQL:2003 compliant

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

LDAP

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Proprietary protocol
Thrift

HTTP API

Supported programming languages

C++

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

C++

any language that supports HTTP calls

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Timer and event based

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

Depending on the underlying data source

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

Depending on the underlying data source

yes

User concepts

Access control

Depending on the underlying data source

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.