DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. Google Cloud Spanner vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. Google Cloud Spanner vs. TigerGraph

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.

Drizzle has published its last release in September 2012. The open-source project is discontinued and Drizzle is excluded from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

MySQL fork with a pluggable micro-kernel and with an emphasis of performance over compatibility.

A horizontally scalable, globally consistent, relational database service. It is the externalization of the core Google database that runs the biggest aspects of Google, like Ads and Google Play.

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

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

Score	2.89
Rank	#103	Overall
	#52	Relational DBMS

Score	1.83
Rank	#139	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Website

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

cloud.google.com/spanner

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

cloud.google.com/spanner/docs

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

Google

Initial release

2016

2008

2017

Current release

1703

7.2.4, September 2012

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GNU GPL

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

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

hosted

Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

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

yes

Query statements complying to ANSI 2011

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JDBC

gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
JDBC

At present, JDBC supports read-only queries. No support for DDL or DML statements.
RESTful HTTP API

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
C++
Java
PHP

Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication with 3 replicas for regional instances.

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

using Google Cloud Dataflow

yes

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

by using interleaved tables, this features focuses more on performance improvements than on referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Strict serializable isolation

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

Pluggable authentication mechanisms

e.g. LDAP, HTTP

Access rights for users, groups and roles based on Google Cloud Identity and Access Management (IAM)

Role-based access control

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

MySQL won the April ranking; did its forks follow?
1 April 2015, Paul Andlinger

Has MySQL finally lost its mojo?
1 July 2013, Matthias Gelbmann

show all

Recent citations in the news

Google Improves Cloud Spanner: More Compute and Storage without Price Increase
14 October 2023, InfoQ.com

Google turns up the heat on AWS, claims Cloud Spanner is half the cost of DynamoDB
11 October 2023, TechCrunch

Google makes its Cloud Spanner database service faster and more cost-efficient
11 October 2023, SiliconANGLE News

Google Spanner: When Do You Need to Move to It?
11 September 2023, hackernoon.com

Google Cloud Spanner competes directly with Amazon DynamoDB
12 October 2023, Techzine Europe

provided by Google News

TigerGraph Unveils CoPilot, Version 4.0, and New CEO
30 April 2024, Datanami

How TigerGraph CoPilot enables graph-augmented AI
30 April 2024, InfoWorld

TigerGraph unveils GenAI assistant, introduces new CEO
30 April 2024, TechTarget

Aerospike takes on Neo4j and TigerGraph with launch of graph database
20 June 2023, SiliconANGLE News

TigerGraph Bolsters DB for Enterprise Graph Workloads
1 November 2023, Datanami

provided by Google News

Share this page