DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dragonfly vs. openGemini vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dragonfly vs. openGemini vs. Snowflake

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

An open source distributed Time Series DBMS with high concurrency, high performance, and high scalability

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

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

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

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#40	Time Series DBMS

Score	133.72
Rank	#7	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

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

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

www.opengemini.org
github.com/openGemini

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

docs.opengemini.org/guide

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

Huawei and openGemini community

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2023

2022

2014

Current release

1703

1.0, March 2023

1.1, July 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSL 1.1

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

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
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

scheme-free

schema-free

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

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

Integer, Float, Boolean, String

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

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

HTTP REST

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

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
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Rust

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

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

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

Atomic execution of command blocks and scripts

ACID

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

Administrators and common users accounts

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.