DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. EJDB vs. TempoIQ

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. EJDB vs. TempoIQ

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.

TempoIQ seems to be decommissioned. It 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)

Scalable analytics DBMS for sensor data, provided as a service (SaaS)

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Website

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

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

tempoiq.com (offline)

Technical documentation

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

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Softmotions

TempoIQ

Initial release

2016

2012

Current release

1703

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPLv2

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

Server operating systems

Linux

server-less

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

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

SQL

Support of SQL

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

in-process shared library

HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

C#
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Triggers

yes

Realtime Alerts

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

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

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

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

simple authentication-based access control

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.

Share this page