DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. EsgynDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake vs. TerarkDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. EsgynDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake vs. TerarkDB

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 fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Cloud-based data warehousing service for structured and semi-structured data

A key-value store forked from RocksDB with advanced compression algorithms. It can be used standalone or as a storage engine for MySQL and MongoDB

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

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

Score	0.16
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#53	Document stores
	#20	Object oriented DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores

Website

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

www.esgyn.cn

origodb.com

www.snowflake.com

github.com/bytedance/terarkdb

Technical documentation

origodb.com/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

bytedance.larkoffice.com/docs/doccnZmYFqHBm06BbvYgjsHHcKc

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Esgyn

Robert Friberg et al

Snowflake Computing Inc.

ByteDance, originally Terark

Initial release

2016

2015

2009

under the name LiveDB

2014

2016

Current release

1703

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

commercial

restricted open source version available

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++, Java

C++

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

can be achieved using .NET

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

C++ API
Java API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/ADO.Net

.Net

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Java Stored Procedures

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication between multi datacenters

Source-replica replication

yes

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

depending on model

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

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

Role based authorization

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable authentication

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.