DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dragonfly vs. etcd vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. SiteWhere

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dragonfly vs. etcd vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. SiteWhere

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

A distributed reliable key-value store

Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service

M2M integration platform for persisting/querying time series data

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Time Series DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.41
Rank	#266	Overall
	#38	Key-value stores

Score	7.25
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	29.04
Rank	#27	Overall
	#4	Document stores
	#2	Graph DBMS
	#3	Key-value stores
	#3	Wide column stores

Score	0.06
Rank	#356	Overall
	#35	Time Series DBMS

Website

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

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

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

azure.microsoft.com/services/cosmos-db

github.com/sitewhere/sitewhere

Technical documentation

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

learn.microsoft.com/azure/cosmos-db

sitewhere1.sitewhere.io/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

Microsoft

SiteWhere

Initial release

2016

2023

2014

2010

Current release

1703

1.0, March 2023

3.4, August 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSL 1.1

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0

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

C++

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

hosted

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

scheme-free

schema-free

predefined scheme

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

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

yes

JSON types

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

All properties auto-indexed by default

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

DocumentDB API
Graph API (Gremlin)
MongoDB API
RESTful HTTP API
Table API

HTTP REST

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

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

.Net
C#
Java
JavaScript
JavaScript (Node.js)
MongoDB client drivers written for various programming languages
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

JavaScript

Triggers

yes

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

yes, watching key changes

JavaScript

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Sharding

based on HBase

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

yes

Implicit feature of the cloud service

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

with Hadoop integration

Integration with Hadoop/HDInsight on Azure*

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Bounded Staleness
Consistent Prefix
Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Consistency level configurable on request level
Session 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

Atomic execution of command blocks and scripts

Multi-item ACID transactions with snapshot isolation within a partition

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

Password-based authentication

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.