DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigObject vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Yanza

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigObject vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Yanza

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines
Name	Atos Standard Common Repository  Xexclude from comparison	BigObject  Xexclude from comparison	Microsoft Azure Table Storage  Xexclude from comparison	Yanza  Xexclude from comparison
	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	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 Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets	Time Series DBMS for IoT Applications
Primary database model	Document store Key-value store	Relational DBMS a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed	Wide column store	Time Series DBMS
DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems Trend Chart		Score 0.19 Rank #329   Overall #146   Relational DBMS	Score 4.04 Rank #77   Overall #6   Wide column stores
Website	atos.net/en/convergence-creators/portfolio/standard-common-repository	bigobject.io	azure.microsoft.com/­en-us/­services/­storage/­tables	yanza.com
Technical documentation		docs.bigobject.io
Developer	Atos Convergence Creators	BigObject, Inc.	Microsoft	Yanza
Initial release	2016	2015	2012	2015
Current release	1703
License Commercial or Open Source	commercial	commercial free community edition available	commercial	commercial free version available
Cloud-based only Only available as a cloud service	no	no	yes	no 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
Server operating systems	Linux	Linux distributed as a docker-image OS X distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker) Windows distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)	hosted	Windows
Data scheme	Schema and schema-less with LDAP views	yes	schema-free	schema-free
Typing predefined data types such as float or date	optional	yes	yes	no
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	no	no	no
Secondary indexes	yes	yes	no	no
SQL Support of SQL	no	SQL-like DML and DDL statements	no	no
APIs and other access methods	LDAP	fluentd ODBC RESTful HTTP API	RESTful HTTP API	HTTP API
Supported programming languages	All languages with LDAP bindings		.Net C# C++ Java JavaScript (Node.js) PHP Python Ruby	any language that supports HTTP calls
Server-side scripts Stored procedures	no	Lua	no	no
Triggers	yes	no	no	yes Timer and event based
Partitioning methods Methods for storing different data on different nodes	Sharding cell division	none	Sharding Implicit feature of the cloud service	none
Replication methods Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes	yes	none	yes implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.	none
MapReduce Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods		no	no	no
Consistency concepts Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system	Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration	none	Immediate Consistency	Immediate Consistency
Foreign keys Referential integrity	no	yes automatically between fact table and dimension tables	no	no
Transaction concepts Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data	Atomic execution of specific operations	no	optimistic locking	no
Concurrency Support for concurrent manipulation of data	yes	yes Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)	yes	yes
Durability Support for making data persistent	yes	yes	yes	yes
In-memory capabilities Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.	yes	yes	no
User concepts Access control	LDAP bind authentication	no	Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures	no
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
	Atos Standard Common Repository	BigObject	Microsoft Azure Table Storage	Yanza
Recent citations in the news			Working with Azure to Use and Manage Data Lakes 7 March 2024, Simplilearn How to Use C# Azure.Data.Tables SDK with Azure Cosmos DB 9 July 2021, hackernoon.com How to use Azure Table storage in .Net 14 January 2019, InfoWorld Quick Guide to Azure Storage Pricing 16 May 2023, DevOps.com How to write data to Azure Table Store with an Azure Function 14 April 2017, Experts Exchange provided by Google News

Share this page