DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dgraph vs. MySQL vs. SpaceTime

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dgraph vs. MySQL vs. SpaceTime

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

Widely used open source RDBMS

SpaceTime is a spatio-temporal DBMS with a focus on performance.

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Spatial DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.45
Rank	#156	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	1083.74
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#7	Spatial DBMS

Website

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

dgraph.io

www.mysql.com

www.mireo.com/spacetime

Technical documentation

dgraph.io/docs

dev.mysql.com/doc

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Mireo

Initial release

2016

1995

2020

Current release

1703

8.3.0, January 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

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.

Aiven for MySQL: Fully managed MySQL, deployable in the cloud of your choice, with seamless integrations and lightning-fast setup.

Implementation language

Java

C and C++

C++

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
OS X
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

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

with proprietary extensions

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

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

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

C#
C++
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

yes

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

Fixed-grid hypercubes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Synchronous replication via Raft

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

Real-time block device replication (DRBD)

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

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

yes

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.