DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. IBM Db2 Event Store vs. Oracle Rdb

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. IBM Db2 Event Store vs. Oracle Rdb

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.

Distributed Event Store optimized for Internet of Things use cases

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Event Store
Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.27
Rank	#309	Overall
	#2	Event Stores
	#28	Time Series DBMS

Score	1.14
Rank	#178	Overall
	#80	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.ibm.com/products/db2-event-store

www.oracle.com/database/technologies/related/rdb.html

Technical documentation

www.ibm.com/docs/en/db2-event-store

www.oracle.com/database/technologies/related/rdb-doc.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

IBM

Oracle, originally developed by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC)

Initial release

2016

2008

2017

1984

Current release

1703

7.2.4, September 2012

2.0

7.4.1.1, 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GNU GPL

commercial

free developer edition available

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++

C and C++

Server operating systems

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

Linux

Linux, macOS, Windows for the developer addition

HP Open VMS

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

Flexible Schema (defined schema, partial schema, schema free)

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

through the embedded Spark runtime

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JDBC

ADO.NET
DB2 Connect
JDBC
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
C++
Java
PHP

C
C#
C++
Cobol
Delphi
Fortran
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Visual Basic

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

Active-active shard replication

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

ACID

yes, on a single node

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

No - written data is immutable

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Yes - Synchronous writes to local disk combined with replication and asynchronous writes in parquet format to permanent shared storage

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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

Advancements in streaming data storage, real-time analysis and machine learning
25 July 2019, ibm.com

How IBM Is Turning Db2 into an ‘AI Database’
3 June 2019, Datanami

Best cloud databases of 2022
4 October 2022, ITPro

Why a robust data management strategy is essential today | IBM HDM
19 September 2019, Express Computer

provided by Google News

Oracle Adds New AI-Enabling Features To MySQL HeatWave
23 March 2023, Forbes

Should we all consolidate databases for the storage benefits? Reg vultures deploy DevOps, zoos, haircuts
18 September 2020, The Register

2013 Data Science Salary Survey – O'Reilly
4 May 2013, O'Reilly Media

provided by Google News

Share this page