DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigObject vs. RavenDB vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigObject vs. RavenDB vs. TigerGraph

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

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Document store

Graph DBMS

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#329	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	2.68
Rank	#102	Overall
	#19	Document stores

Score	1.44
Rank	#152	Overall
	#14	Graph DBMS

Website

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

bigobject.io

ravendb.net

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

ravendb.net/docs

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

BigObject, Inc.

Hibernating Rhinos

Initial release

2016

2015

2010

2017

Current release

1703

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

AGPL 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

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

SQL-like query language (RQL)

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Multi-source replication

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

none

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

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

Authorization levels configured per client per database

Role-based access control

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

RavenDB Launches Version 6.0 Lightning Fast Queries, Data Integrations, Corax Indexing Engine, and Sharding
3 October 2023, PR Newswire

Install the NoSQL RavenDB Data System
14 May 2021, The New Stack

RavenDB Welcomes David Baruc as Chief Revenue Officer: Seasoned Tech Leader to Drive Global Sales and Accelerate Growth
13 June 2023, PR Newswire

Get To Know: Oren Eini, CEO, RavenDB
22 October 2019, Intelligent CIO

RavenDB Adds Graph Queries
15 May 2019, Datanami

provided by Google News

TigerGraph Unveils CoPilot, Version 4.0, and New CEO
30 April 2024, Datanami

TigerGraph unveils GenAI assistant, introduces new CEO
30 April 2024, TechTarget

How TigerGraph CoPilot enables graph-augmented AI
30 April 2024, InfoWorld

graph database Archives
26 June 2024, insideainews.com

TigerGraph Bolsters DB for Enterprise Graph Workloads
1 November 2023, Datanami

provided by Google News

Share this page