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

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

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

In-Memory RDBMS compatible to Oracle

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Graph DBMS

Relational 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	1.35
Rank	#165	Overall
	#75	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.bigchaindb.com

dgraph.io

www.snowflake.com

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

Technical documentation

bigchaindb.readthedocs.io/en/latest

dgraph.io/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

docs.oracle.com/database/timesten-18.1

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Oracle, TimesTen Performance Software, HP

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

Initial release

2016

2014

1998

Current release

1703

11 Release 2 (11.2.2.8.0)

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

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

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

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

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

JDBC
ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)

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++
Java
PL/SQL

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

PL/SQL

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

none

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

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

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

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

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.