DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigObject vs. Dragonfly vs. OpenQM

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigObject vs. Dragonfly vs. OpenQM

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

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

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

A drop-in Redis replacement that scales vertically to support millions of operations per second and terabyte sized workloads, all on a single instance

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Key-value store

Multivalue DBMS

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

Score	0.19
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	0.49
Rank	#261	Overall
	#38	Key-value stores

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Website

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

bigobject.io

github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly
www.dragonflydb.io

www.rocketsoftware.com/products/rocket-multivalue-application-development-platform/rocket-open-qm

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

BigObject, Inc.

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Initial release

2016

2015

2023

1993

Current release

1703

1.0, March 2023

3.4-12

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

BSL 1.1

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

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

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

Linux

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

scheme-free

yes

with some exceptions

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

strings, hashes, lists, sets, sorted sets, bit arrays

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-like DML and DDL statements

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
C#
C++
Clojure
D
Dart
Elixir
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
Lua
Objective-C
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift
Tcl

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

Triggers

yes

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Source-replica replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

none

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

Atomic execution of command blocks and scripts

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes, strict serializability by the server

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

Password-based authentication

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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

DragonflyDB Announces $21m in New Funding and General Availability
21 March 2023, Business Wire

DragonflyDB reels in $21M for its speedy in-memory database
21 March 2023, SiliconANGLE News

DragonflyDB Raises $21M in Funding
21 March 2023, FinSMEs

Intel Linux Kernel Optimizations Show Huge Benefit For High Core Count Servers
29 March 2023, Phoronix

SFU Computing Science researchers receive 2022 ACM SIGMOD Research Highlight Award.
24 February 2023, Simon Fraser University News

provided by Google News

Share this page