DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. IRONdb vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. IRONdb 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.

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

IRONdb seems to be discontinued. Therefore it 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 distributed Time Series DBMS with a focus on scalability, fault tolerance and operational simplicity

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

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.circonus.com/solutions/time-series-database/

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

docs.circonus.com/irondb/category/getting-started

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

Circonus LLC.

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2008

2017

2014

Current release

1703

7.2.4, September 2012

V0.10.20, January 2018

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++

C and C++

Server operating systems

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

Linux

hosted

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

text, numeric, histograms

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

SQL-like query language (Circonus Analytics Query Language: CAQL)

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JDBC

HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
C++
Java
PHP

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes, in Lua

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

Automatic, metric affinity per node

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

configurable replication factor, datacenter aware

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

Immediate consistency per node, eventual consistency across nodes

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

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

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.