DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dgraph vs. Dragonfly vs. searchxml

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dgraph vs. Dragonfly vs. searchxml

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

Distributed and scalable native Graph DBMS

A drop-in Redis replacement that scales vertically to support millions of operations per second and terabyte sized workloads, all on a single instance

DBMS for structured and unstructured content wrapped with an application server

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS

Key-value store

Native XML DBMS
Search engine

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

Score	1.39
Rank	#155	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	0.44
Rank	#255	Overall
	#38	Key-value stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#7	Native XML DBMS
	#24	Search engines

Website

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

dgraph.io

github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly
www.dragonflydb.io

www.searchxml.net/category/products

Technical documentation

dgraph.io/docs

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

www.searchxml.net/support/handouts

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

informationpartners gmbh

Initial release

2016

2023

2015

Current release

1703

1.0, March 2023

1.0

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

BSL 1.1

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++

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

scheme-free

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

strings, hashes, lists, sets, sorted sets, bit arrays

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

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

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

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

RESTful HTTP API
WebDAV
XQuery
XSLT

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

C
C#
C++
Clojure
D
Dart
Elixir
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
Lua
Objective-C
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift
Tcl

C++

most other programming languages supported via APIs

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

on the application server

Triggers

yes

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Synchronous replication via Raft

Source-replica replication

yes

sychronisation to multiple collections

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

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Atomic execution of command blocks and scripts

multiple readers, single writer

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

yes, strict serializability by the server

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

Planned for future releases

Password-based authentication

Domain, group and role-based access control at the document level and for application services

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

Top Open Source Graph Databases
3 June 2024, MarkTechPost

Dgraph on AWS: Setting up a horizontally scalable graph database
1 September 2020, AWS Blog

Dgraph raises $11.5 million for scalable graph database solutions
31 July 2019, VentureBeat

Graph Database Market size to grow by USD 7.40 billion between 2022 - 2027 | Growth Driven by Lack of standardization and programming flexibility - Technavio
13 December 2023, Yahoo Finance

provided by Google News

DragonflyDB Announces $21m in New Funding and General Availability
21 March 2023, Business Wire

DragonflyDB reels in $21M for its speedy in-memory database
21 March 2023, SiliconANGLE News

DragonflyDB Raises $21M in Funding
21 March 2023, FinSMEs

Intel Linux Kernel Optimizations Show Huge Benefit For High Core Count Servers
29 March 2023, Phoronix

The Performance Impact Of Intel's Register File Data Sampling "RFDS" Mitigation
15 March 2024, Phoronix

provided by Google News

Share this page