DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. DataFS vs. Dgraph vs. Snowflake vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. DataFS vs. Dgraph vs. Snowflake vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued 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

All data is stored inside objects which are linked by so-called link attributes. Objects consist of classes which can be extended and de-extended at runtime. Graphs can be defined with a struct.

Distributed and scalable native Graph DBMS

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

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Object oriented DBMS

Graph DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS

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

Score	0.09
Rank	#360	Overall
	#17	Object oriented DBMS

Score	1.53
Rank	#152	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

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

newdatabase.com

dgraph.io

www.snowflake.com

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

dev.mobiland.com/Overview.xsp

dgraph.io/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Mobiland AG

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2016

2018

2016

2014

2009

Current release

1703

1.1.263, October 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

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

Server operating systems

Linux

Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

hosted

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

Classes, Structs, and Lists are written in proprietary DataTypeDefinitionLanguage (.dtdl) and Objects consisting of those are written in proprietary DataAccessDefinitionLanguage (.dadl)

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

.NET Client API
Proprietary client DLL
WinRT client

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

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C#
C++
VB.Net

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

no, except callback-events from server when changes happened

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Proprietary Sharding system

yes

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Synchronous replication via Raft

yes

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

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

Windows-Profile

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.