DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Datomic vs. EXASOL vs. Snowflake vs. YottaDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Datomic vs. EXASOL vs. Snowflake vs. YottaDB

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

Datomic builds on immutable values, supports point-in-time queries and uses 3rd party systems for durability

High-performance, in-memory, MPP database specifically designed for in-memory analytics.

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

A fast and solid embedded Key-value store

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

using the Octo plugin

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

Score	1.66
Rank	#144	Overall
	#66	Relational DBMS

Score	1.76
Rank	#139	Overall
	#62	Relational DBMS

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Score	0.28
Rank	#306	Overall
	#44	Key-value stores

Website

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

Technical documentation

docs.datomic.com

www.exasol.com/resources

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

yottadb.com/resources/documentation

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Cognitect

Exasol

Snowflake Computing Inc.

YottaDB, LLC

Initial release

2016

2012

2000

2014

2001

Current release

1703

1.0.7075, December 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

limited edition free

commercial

Open Source

AGPL 3.0

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

Java, Clojure

Server operating systems

Linux

All OS with a Java VM

hosted

Docker
Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

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

schema-free

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

by using the Octo plugin

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

RESTful HTTP API

.Net
JDBC
ODBC
WebSocket

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

PostgreSQL wire protocol

using the Octo plugin
Proprietary protocol

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Clojure
Java

Java
Lua
Python
R

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C
Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
M
Perl
Python
Rust

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Transaction Functions

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

By using transaction functions

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

But extensive use of caching in the application peers

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

But extensive use of caching in the application peers

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Hadoop integration

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

optimistic locking

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

using external storage systems (e.g. Cassandra, DynamoDB, PostgreSQL, Couchbase and others)

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

recommended only for testing and development

yes

User concepts

Access control

LDAP bind authentication

Access rights for users, groups and roles according to SQL-standard

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

Users and groups based on OS-security mechanisms

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.