DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. EJDB vs. Google BigQuery vs. Hypertable vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. EJDB vs. Google BigQuery vs. Hypertable vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Hypertable has stopped its further development with March 2016 and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

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

Embeddable document-store database library with JSON representation of queries (in MongoDB style)

Large scale data warehouse service with append-only tables

An open source BigTable implementation based on distributed file systems such as Hadoop

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

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

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	60.38
Rank	#19	Overall
	#13	Relational DBMS

Website

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

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

cloud.google.com/bigquery

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb/blob/master/README.md

cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Softmotions

Google

Hypertable Inc.

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2016

2012

2010

2009

Current release

1703

0.9.8.11, March 2016

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPLv2

commercial

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

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

server-less

hosted

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

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

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

in-process shared library

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

C++ API
Thrift

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
Objective-C
Pike
Python
Ruby

.Net
Java
JavaScript
Objective-C
PHP
Python
Ruby

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in JavaScript

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

selectable replication factor on file system level

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

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

Since BigQuery is designed for querying data

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

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

Access privileges (owner, writer, reader) on dataset, table or view level

Google Cloud Identity & Access Management (IAM)

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.