DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BaseX vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. Netezza vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BaseX vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. Netezza vs. Snowflake

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

Description

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

Light-weight Native XML DBMS with support for XQuery 3.0 and interactive GUI.

Database as a Service offering with high compatibility to Microsoft SQL Server

Data warehouse and analytics appliance part of IBM PureSystems

Cloud-based data warehousing service for structured and semi-structured data

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Native XML DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	1.73
Rank	#142	Overall
	#4	Native XML DBMS

Score	77.99
Rank	#16	Overall
	#11	Relational DBMS

Score	9.06
Rank	#46	Overall
	#29	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

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

basex.org

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/azure-sql/database

www.ibm.com/products/netezza

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

docs.basex.org

docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-sql

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

BaseX GmbH

Microsoft

IBM

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2007

2010

2000

2014

Current release

1703

10.7, August 2023

V12

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSD license

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

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

Linux
OS X
Windows

hosted

Linux

included in appliance

hosted

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

XQuery supports types

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

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

Java API
RESTful HTTP API
RESTXQ
WebDAV
XML:DB
XQJ

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Actionscript
C
C#
Haskell
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
Lisp
Perl
PHP
Python
Qt
Rebol
Ruby
Scala
Visual Basic

.Net
C#
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
C++
Fortran
Java
Lua
Perl
Python
R

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Transact SQL

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

via events

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

yes, with always 3 replicas available

Source-replica replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

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

multiple readers, single writer

ACID

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

LDAP bind authentication

Users with fine-grained authorization concept on 4 levels

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable 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.