DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigObject vs. EJDB vs. TimesTen

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigObject vs. EJDB vs. TimesTen

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

Embeddable document-store database library with JSON representation of queries (in MongoDB style)

In-Memory RDBMS compatible to Oracle

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Document store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#333	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	1.31
Rank	#163	Overall
	#74	Relational DBMS

Website

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

bigobject.io

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.oracle.com/database/technologies/related/timesten.html

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb/blob/master/README.md

docs.oracle.com/database/timesten-18.1

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

BigObject, Inc.

Softmotions

Oracle, TimesTen Performance Software, HP

originally founded in HP Labs it was acquired by Oracle in 2005

Initial release

2016

2015

2012

1998

Current release

1703

11 Release 2 (11.2.2.8.0)

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

GPLv2

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

Server operating systems

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

server-less

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris SPARC/x86
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

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

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

in-process shared library

JDBC
ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
Objective-C
Pike
Python
Ruby

C
C++
Java
PL/SQL

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

PL/SQL

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

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

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

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

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes

Read/Write Locking

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

by means of logfiles and checkpoints

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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

The Intel Xeon E7-8800 v3 Review: The POWER8 Killer?
8 May 2015, AnandTech

provided by Google News

Share this page