DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BoltDB vs. Hypertable vs. mSQL vs. Postgres-XL

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BoltDB vs. Hypertable vs. mSQL vs. Postgres-XL

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

Hypertable has stopped its further development with March 2016 and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

An embedded key-value store for Go.

An open source BigTable implementation based on distributed file systems such as Hadoop

mSQL (Mini SQL) is a simple and lightweight RDBMS

Based on PostgreSQL enhanced with MPP and write-scale-out cluster features

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.74
Rank	#220	Overall
	#31	Key-value stores

Score	1.27
Rank	#167	Overall
	#77	Relational DBMS

Score	0.49
Rank	#256	Overall
	#117	Relational DBMS

Website

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

github.com/boltdb/bolt

hughestech.com.au/products/msql

www.postgres-xl.org

Technical documentation

www.postgres-xl.org/documentation

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Hypertable Inc.

Hughes Technologies

Initial release

2016

2013

2009

1994

2014

since 2012, originally named StormDB

Current release

1703

0.9.8.11, March 2016

4.4, October 2021

10 R1, October 2018

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

commercial

free licenses can be provided

Open Source

Mozilla public license

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

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

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

Linux
macOS

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

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

XML type, but no XML query functionality

Secondary indexes

yes

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

no subqueries, aggregate functions, views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

distributed, parallel query execution

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

C++ API
Thrift

JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
PHP
Tcl

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Erlang
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

selectable replication factor on file system level

none

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

Immediate Consistency

none

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

yes

ACID

MVCC

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

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

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.

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

What I learnt from building 3 high traffic web applications on an embedded key value store.
21 February 2018, hackernoon.com

4 Instructive Postmortems on Data Downtime and Loss
1 March 2024, The Hacker News

Roblox’s cloud-native catastrophe: A post mortem
31 January 2022, InfoWorld

How to Put a GUI on Ansible, Using Semaphore
22 April 2023, The New Stack

provided by Google News

SQL and TimescaleDB. This article takes a closer look into… | by Alibaba Cloud
31 July 2019, DataDrivenInvestor

TimescaleDB goes distributed; implements ‘Chunking’ over ‘Sharding’ for scaling-out
22 August 2019, Packt Hub

Decorate your Windows XP with Hyperdesk
30 July 2008, CNET

Comparing Different Time-Series Databases
10 February 2022, hackernoon.com

The Collective: Customize Your Computer & Your Phone With Star Trek
18 March 2009, TrekMovie

provided by Google News

Writing a Web Service in Perl
9 July 2003, PCQuest

Higher Education PS rules out ghost students before PAC - Zambia
29 November 2018, diggers.news

provided by Google News

Share this page