DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. EJDB vs. JaguarDB vs. Sphinx

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. EJDB vs. JaguarDB vs. Sphinx

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.

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)

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

Open source search engine for searching in data from different sources, e.g. relational databases

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Search engine

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

Score	0.31
Rank	#296	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	0.06
Rank	#381	Overall
	#59	Key-value stores
	#14	Vector DBMS

Score	5.95
Rank	#55	Overall
	#5	Search engines

Website

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

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.jaguardb.com

sphinxsearch.com

Technical documentation

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

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

sphinxsearch.com/docs

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Softmotions

DataJaguar, Inc.

Sphinx Technologies Inc.

Initial release

2016

2012

2015

2001

Current release

1703

3.3 July 2023

3.5.1, February 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

GPL V3.0

Open Source

GPL version 2, commercial licence available

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++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

C++

Server operating systems

Linux

server-less

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
NetBSD
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

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

full-text index on all search fields

SQL

Support of SQL

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

SQL-like query language (SphinxQL)

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

in-process shared library

JDBC
ODBC

Proprietary protocol

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

C++

unofficial client library
Java
Perl

unofficial client library
PHP
Python
Ruby

unofficial client library

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

Partitioning is done manually, search queries against distributed index is supported

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Multi-source replication

none

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

The original contents of fields are not stored in the Sphinx index.

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

rights management via user accounts

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

The DB-Engines ranking includes now search engines
4 February 2013, Paul Andlinger

show all

Recent citations in the news

Switching From Sphinx to MkDocs Documentation — What Did I Gain and Lose
2 February 2024, Towards Data Science

5 Powerful Alternatives to Elasticsearch
25 April 2024, Insider Monkey

Manticore is a Faster Alternative to Elasticsearch in C++
25 July 2022, hackernoon.com

Royal Mail stamp prices could rise, warns Czech Sphinx
3 June 2024, Proactive Investors UK

Perplexity AI: From Its Use To Operation, Everything You Need To Know About Google's Newest Challenger
11 January 2024, Free Press Journal

provided by Google News

Share this page