DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Faircom DB vs. Graph Engine

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Faircom DB vs. Graph Engine

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

Native high-speed multi-model DBMS for relational and key-value store data simultaneously accessible through SQL and NoSQL APIs.

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

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

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

Score	0.24
Rank	#311	Overall
	#44	Key-value stores
	#140	Relational DBMS

Score	0.62
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Website

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

www.faircom.com/products/faircom-db

www.graphengine.io

Technical documentation

docs.faircom.com/docs/en/UUID-7446ae34-a1a7-c843-c894-d5322e395184.html

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

FairCom Corporation

Microsoft

Initial release

2016

1979

2010

Current release

1703

V12, November 2020

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Restricted, free version available

Open Source

MIT License

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

ANSI C, C++

.NET and C

Server operating systems

Linux

AIX
FreeBSD
HP-UX
Linux
NetBSD
OS X
QNX
SCO
Solaris
VxWorks
Windows

easily portable to other OSs

.NET

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema free, schema optional, schema required, partial schema,

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes, ANSI SQL Types, JSON, typed binary structures

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, ANSI SQL with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

ADO.NET
Direct SQL
JDBC
JPA
ODBC
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
RESTful MQTT/JSON API
RPC

RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js and browser)
PHP
Python
Visual Basic

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

.Net, JavaScript, C/C++

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

File partitioning, horizontal partitioning, sharding

Customizable business rules for table partitioning

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

yes, configurable to be parallel or serial, synchronous or asynchronous, uni-directional or bi-directional, ACID-consistent or eventually consistent (with custom conflict resolution).

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
Immediate Consistency
Tunable consistency per server, database, table, and transaction

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

tunable from ACID to Eventually Consistent

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Yes, tunable from durable to delayed durability to in-memory

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

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 with additional protections for files

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

Recent citations in the news

FairCom kicks off new era of database technology USA - English
10 November 2020, PR Newswire

World's First Converged IIoT Hub to be Showcased at IoT Tech Expo
3 September 2021, Automation.com

provided by Google News

Trinity
2 June 2023, Microsoft

Open source Microsoft Graph Engine takes on Neo4j
13 February 2017, InfoWorld

IBM releases Graph, a service that can outperform SQL databases
27 July 2016, GeekWire

How Google and Microsoft taught search to "understand" the Web
6 June 2012, Ars Technica

Aerospike Is Now a Graph Database, Too
21 June 2023, Datanami

provided by Google News

Share this page