DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. DataFS vs. Graph Engine vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. DataFS vs. Graph Engine vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

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

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.

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

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

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Object oriented DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

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
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Score	0.67
Rank	#232	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#34	Key-value stores

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

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

newdatabase.com

www.graphengine.io

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

dev.mobiland.com/Overview.xsp

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Mobiland AG

Microsoft

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2018

2010

2014

Current release

1703

1.1.263, October 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

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

.NET and C

Server operating systems

Linux

Windows

.NET

hosted

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)

yes

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

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

RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C#
C++
VB.Net

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

no, except callback-events from server when changes happened

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Proprietary Sharding system

horizontal partitioning

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

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

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

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

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

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.