DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dgraph vs. searchxml vs. Sequoiadb vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dgraph vs. searchxml vs. Sequoiadb vs. Snowflake

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

DBMS for structured and unstructured content wrapped with an application server

NewSQL database with distributed OLTP and SQL

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

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS

Native XML DBMS
Search engine

Document store
Relational 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	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#7	Native XML DBMS
	#25	Search engines

Score	0.45
Rank	#261	Overall
	#41	Document stores
	#122	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

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

dgraph.io

www.searchxml.net/category/products

www.sequoiadb.com

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

dgraph.io/docs

www.searchxml.net/support/handouts

www.sequoiadb.com/en/index.php?m=Files&a=index

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

informationpartners gmbh

Sequoiadb Ltd.

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2015

2013

2014

Current release

1703

1.0

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Server: AGPL; Client: Apache V2

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

C++

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
OS X
Windows

Windows

Linux

hosted

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

oid, date, timestamp, binary, regex

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

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

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

RESTful HTTP API
WebDAV
XQuery
XSLT

proprietary protocol using JSON

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

C++

most other programming languages supported via APIs

.Net
C++
Java
PHP
Python

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

on the application server

JavaScript

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

yes

none

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Synchronous replication via Raft

yes

sychronisation to multiple collections

Source-replica replication

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

Eventual Consistency

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

multiple readers, single writer

Document is locked during a transaction

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

Planned for future releases

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

simple password-based access control

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.