DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. EsgynDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. SwayDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. EsgynDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. SwayDB

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

Enterprise-class SQL-on-Hadoop solution, powered by Apache Trafodion

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

An embeddable, non-blocking, type-safe key-value store for single or multiple disks and in-memory storage

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.16
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	0.61
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#382	Overall
	#59	Key-value stores

Website

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

www.esgyn.cn

www.graphengine.io

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

swaydb.simer.au

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Esgyn

Microsoft

Simer Plaha

Initial release

2016

2015

2010

1989

2018

Current release

1703

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

GNU Affero GPL V3.0

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

.NET and C

C++

Scala

Server operating systems

Linux

.NET

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

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

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/ADO.Net

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

Java
Kotlin
Scala

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Java Stored Procedures

yes

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication between multi datacenters

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

none

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

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Atomic execution of operations

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

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

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.