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

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dragonfly vs. GeoMesa 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

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

GeoMesa is a distributed spatio-temporal DBMS based on various systems as storage layer.

DBMS for structured and unstructured content wrapped with an application server

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Spatial DBMS

Native XML DBMS
Search engine

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

Score	0.49
Rank	#261	Overall
	#38	Key-value stores

Score	0.86
Rank	#205	Overall
	#4	Spatial DBMS

Score	0.03
Rank	#390	Overall
	#7	Native XML DBMS
	#24	Search engines

Website

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

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

www.geomesa.org

www.searchxml.net/category/products

Technical documentation

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

www.geomesa.org/documentation/stable/user/index.html

www.searchxml.net/support/handouts

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

CCRi and others

informationpartners gmbh

Initial release

2016

2023

2014

2015

Current release

1703

1.0, March 2023

5.0.0, May 2024

1.0

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSL 1.1

Open Source

Apache License 2.0

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++

Scala

C++

Server operating systems

Linux

Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

scheme-free

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

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

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

RESTful HTTP API
WebDAV
XQuery
XSLT

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

depending on storage layer

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

depending on storage layer

yes

sychronisation to multiple collections

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Eventual Consistency

depending on storage layer

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

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

depending on storage layer

User concepts

Access control

LDAP bind authentication

Password-based authentication

yes

depending on the DBMS used for storage

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

DB-Engines blog posts

Spatial database management systems
6 April 2021, Matthias Gelbmann

show all

Recent citations in the news

DragonflyDB Announces $21m in New Funding and General Availability
21 March 2023, businesswire.com

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

Dragonfly 1.0 Released For What Claims To Be The World's Fastest In-Memory Data Store
20 March 2023, Phoronix

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

SFU Computing Science researchers receive 2022 ACM SIGMOD Research Highlight Award.
24 February 2023, Simon Fraser University News

provided by Google News

Share this page