DBMS > Apache IoTDB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Hypertable vs. SpaceTime

System Properties Comparison Apache IoTDB vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Hypertable vs. SpaceTime

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.

Hypertable has stopped its further development with March 2016 and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

An IoT native database with high performance for data management and analysis, deployable on the edge and the cloud and integrated with Hadoop, Spark and Flink

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

An open source BigTable implementation based on distributed file systems such as Hadoop

SpaceTime is a spatio-temporal DBMS with a focus on performance.

Primary database model

Time Series DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Wide column store

Spatial DBMS

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.18
Rank	#173	Overall
	#15	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#7	Spatial DBMS

Website

iotdb.apache.org

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

www.mireo.com/spacetime

Technical documentation

iotdb.apache.org/UserGuide/Master/QuickStart/QuickStart.html

Developer

Apache Software Foundation

Atos Convergence Creators

Hypertable Inc.

Mireo

Initial release

2018

2016

2009

2020

Current release

1.1.0, April 2023

1703

0.9.8.11, March 2016

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

commercial

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++

Server operating systems

All OS with a Java VM (>= 1.8)

Linux

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

Linux

Data scheme

yes

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

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

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
Native API

LDAP

C++ API
Thrift

RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
Python
Scala

All languages with LDAP bindings

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

C#
C++
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning (by time range) + vertical partitioning (by deviceId)

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

Fixed-grid hypercubes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication methods; using Raft/IoTConsensus algorithm to ensure strong/eventual data consistency among multiple replicas

yes

selectable replication factor on file system level

Real-time block device replication (DRBD)

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Integration with Hadoop and Spark

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Strong Consistency with Raft

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

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

yes

LDAP bind authentication

yes

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

TsFile: A Standard Format for IoT Time Series Data
27 February 2024, The New Stack

Linux 6.5 With AMD P-State EPP Default Brings Performance & Power Efficiency Benefits For Ryzen Servers
21 September 2023, Phoronix

AMD EPYC 8324P / 8324PN Siena 32-Core Siena Linux Server Performance Review
10 October 2023, Phoronix

Apache Promotes IoT Database Project
25 September 2020, Datanami

IoTDB Provides Data Management for Industrial Edge IT
15 October 2020, The New Stack

provided by Google News

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

provided by Google News

SQL and TimescaleDB. This article takes a closer look into… | by Alibaba Cloud
31 July 2019, DataDrivenInvestor

TimescaleDB goes distributed; implements ‘Chunking’ over ‘Sharding’ for scaling-out
22 August 2019, Packt Hub

Decorate your Windows XP with Hyperdesk
30 July 2008, CNET

The Collective: Customize Your Computer & Your Phone With Star Trek
18 March 2009, TrekMovie

Exclusive: Groupon Acquires Stealth Silicon Valley Startup Campfire Labs
28 December 2011, TechCrunch

provided by Google News

Share this page