DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigchainDB vs. Dgraph vs. Snowflake vs. Teradata

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigchainDB vs. Dgraph vs. Snowflake vs. Teradata

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

BigchainDB is scalable blockchain database offering decentralization, immutability and native assets

Distributed and scalable native Graph DBMS

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

A hybrid cloud data analytics software platform (Teradata Vantage)

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Graph DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.82
Rank	#212	Overall
	#36	Document stores

Score	1.48
Rank	#158	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	123.20
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	47.84
Rank	#21	Overall
	#15	Relational DBMS

Website

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

Technical documentation

bigchaindb.readthedocs.io/en/latest

dgraph.io/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

docs.teradata.com

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Teradata

Initial release

2016

2014

1984

Current release

1703

Teradata Vantage 1.0 MU2, January 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

AGPL v3

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

Python

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
OS X
Windows

hosted

hosted
Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

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

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

Join-index to prejoin tables, aggregate index, sparse index, hash index

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL 2016 + extensions

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

CLI Client
RESTful HTTP API

GraphQL query language
gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP REST
JDBC
JMS Adapter
ODBC
OLE DB

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Python
Ruby

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C
C++
Cobol
Java (JDBC-ODBC)
Perl
PL/1
Python
R
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

yes

UDFs, stored procedures, table functions in parallel

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

Sharding

Hashing

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

Synchronous replication via Raft

yes

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

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes,with MongoDB ord RethinkDB

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

yes

Planned for future releases

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