DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. TigerGraph vs. VoltDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. TigerGraph vs. VoltDB

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

Distributed In-Memory NewSQL RDBMS

Used for OLTP applications with a high frequency of relatively simple transactions, that can hold all their data in memory

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.83
Rank	#139	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Score	1.44
Rank	#158	Overall
	#73	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.tigergraph.com

www.voltdb.com

Technical documentation

docs.tigergraph.com

docs.voltdb.com

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

VoltDB Inc.

Initial release

2016

2008

2017

2010

Current release

1703

7.2.4, September 2012

11.3, April 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GNU GPL

commercial

Open Source

AGPL for Community Edition, commercial license for Enterprise, AWS, and Pro Editions

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++

Java, C++

Server operating systems

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

Linux

Linux
OS X

for development

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

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

yes

only a subset of SQL 99

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JDBC

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

Java API
JDBC
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
C++
Java
PHP

C++
Java

C#
C++
Erlang

not officially supported
Go
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Java

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

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

FOREIGN KEY constraints are not supported

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Transactions are executed single-threaded within stored procedures

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Data access is serialized by the server

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Snapshots and command logging

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

Role-based access control

Users and roles with access to stored procedures

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

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

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

Unveiling Volt Active Data's game-changing approach to limitless app performance
16 October 2023, YourStory

VoltDB Launches Active(N) Lossless Cross Data Center Replication
31 August 2021, PR Newswire

VoltDB Turns to Real-Time Analytics with NewSQL Database
30 January 2014, Datanami

VoltDB Upgrades Power, Security of Its In-Memory Database
1 February 2017, eWeek

VoltDB Aims for Fast Big Data Development -- ADTmag
29 January 2015, ADT Magazine

provided by Google News

Share this page