DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. Lovefield vs. OrientDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. Lovefield vs. OrientDB

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.

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

Multi-model DBMS (Document, Graph, Key/Value)

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store

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

Score	0.29
Rank	#293	Overall
	#133	Relational DBMS

Score	3.19
Rank	#93	Overall
	#16	Document stores
	#7	Graph DBMS
	#14	Key-value stores

Website

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

google.github.io/lovefield

orientdb.org

Technical documentation

github.com/google/lovefield/blob/master/docs/spec_index.md

www.orientdb.com/docs/last/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

Google

OrientDB LTD; CallidusCloud; SAP

Initial release

2016

2008

2014

2010

Current release

1703

7.2.4, September 2012

2.1.12, February 2017

3.2.29, March 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GNU GPL

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Apache version 2

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++

JavaScript

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js)

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

All OS with a Java JDK (>= JDK 6)

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

Schema can be enforced for whole record ("schema-full") or for some fields only ("schema-hybrid")

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

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

SQL-like query language, no joins

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JDBC

Tinkerpop technology stack with Blueprints, Gremlin, Pipes
Java API
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
C++
Java
PHP

JavaScript

.Net
C
C#
C++
Clojure
Java
JavaScript
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Java, Javascript

Triggers

yes

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

Using read-only observers

Hooks

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

none

Multi-source replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

could be achieved with distributed queries

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

relationship in graphs

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

yes, by using IndexedDB or the cloud service Firebase Realtime Database

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

using MemoryDB

User concepts

Access control

LDAP bind authentication

Pluggable authentication mechanisms

e.g. LDAP, HTTP

Access rights for users and roles; record level security configurable

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

Graph DBMS increased their popularity by 500% within the last 2 years
3 March 2015, Paul Andlinger

Graph DBMSs are gaining in popularity faster than any other database category
21 January 2014, Matthias Gelbmann

show all

Recent citations in the news

Infographic: What makes a Mobile Operator's setup future proof?
10 February 2024, Atos

provided by Google News

The 12 Best Graph Databases to Consider for 2024
22 October 2023, Solutions Review

OrientDB: A Flexible and Scalable Multi-Model NoSQL DBMS
21 January 2022, Open Source For You

Comparing Graph Databases II. Part 2: ArangoDB, OrientDB, and… | by Sam Bell
20 September 2019, Towards Data Science

ArangoDB raises $10 million for NoSQL database management
14 March 2019, VentureBeat

K2View updates DataOps platform with data fabric automation
11 May 2021, TechTarget

provided by Google News

Share this page