DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigchainDB vs. Snowflake vs. TempoIQ vs. Titan

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigchainDB vs. Snowflake vs. TempoIQ vs. Titan

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

TempoIQ seems to be decommissioned. It will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Titan has been decommisioned after the takeover by Datastax. It will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking. A fork has been open-sourced as JanusGraph.

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

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

Scalable analytics DBMS for sensor data, provided as a service (SaaS)

Titan is a Graph DBMS optimized for distributed clusters.

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

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

Score	0.79
Rank	#212	Overall
	#36	Document stores

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.bigchaindb.com

www.snowflake.com

tempoiq.com (offline)

github.com/thinkaurelius/titan

Technical documentation

bigchaindb.readthedocs.io/en/latest

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/wiki

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Snowflake Computing Inc.

TempoIQ

Aurelius, owned by DataStax

Initial release

2016

2014

2012

Current release

1703

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

AGPL v3

commercial

Open Source

Apache license, version 2.0

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

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

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

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

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

CLI Client
RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

HTTP API

Java API
TinkerPop Blueprints
TinkerPop Frames
TinkerPop Gremlin
TinkerPop Rexster

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Python
Ruby

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C#
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
Python
Ruby

Clojure
Java
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

yes

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Realtime Alerts

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

via pluggable storage backends

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

via Faunus, a graph analytics engine

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graph

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

Supports various storage backends: Cassandra, HBase, Berkeley DB, Akiban, Hazelcast

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

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

simple authentication-based access control

User authentification and security via Rexster Graph Server

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.