DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Cachelot.io vs. EJDB vs. Graphite vs. TimesTen

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Cachelot.io vs. EJDB vs. Graphite 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

In-memory caching system

Embeddable document-store database library with JSON representation of queries (in MongoDB style)

Data logging and graphing tool for time series data

The storage layer (fixed size database) is called Whisper

In-Memory RDBMS compatible to Oracle

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

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

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	4.57
Rank	#73	Overall
	#5	Time Series DBMS

Score	1.31
Rank	#163	Overall
	#74	Relational DBMS

Website

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

cachelot.io

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

github.com/graphite-project/graphite-web

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

Technical documentation

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb/blob/master/README.md

graphite.readthedocs.io

docs.oracle.com/database/timesten-18.1

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Softmotions

Chris Davis

Oracle, TimesTen Performance Software, HP

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

Initial release

2016

2015

2012

2006

1998

Current release

1703

11 Release 2 (11.2.2.8.0)

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Simplified BSD License

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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++

Python

Server operating systems

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

server-less

Linux
Unix

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

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

Numeric data only

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

Memcached protocol

in-process shared library

HTTP API
Sockets

JDBC
ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C++
ColdFusion
Erlang
Java
Lisp
Lua
OCaml
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
Objective-C
Pike
Python
Ruby

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C
C++
Java
PL/SQL

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

PL/SQL

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

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

none

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

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

Read/Write Locking

yes

locking

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

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

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

DB-Engines blog posts

Time Series DBMS are the database category with the fastest increase in popularity
4 July 2016, Matthias Gelbmann

Time Series DBMS as a new trend?
1 June 2015, Paul Andlinger

show all

Recent citations in the news

Try out the Graphite monitoring tool for time-series data
29 October 2019, TechTarget

Grafana Labs Announces Mimir Time Series Database
1 April 2022, Datanami

The Billion Data Point Challenge: Building a Query Engine for High Cardinality Time Series Data
10 December 2018, Uber

Getting Started with Monitoring using Graphite
23 January 2015, InfoQ.com

Real-Time Performance and Health Monitoring Using Netdata
2 September 2019, CNX Software

provided by Google News

Oracle starts peddling Exalytics in-memory appliance
12 March 2012, The Register

provided by Google News

Share this page