DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Faircom DB vs. SQLite vs. TerminusDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Faircom DB vs. SQLite vs. TerminusDB

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.

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Scalable Graph Database platform making enterprise data available by exploiting inferred entities and relationships

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
RDF store

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

Score	0.29
Rank	#304	Overall
	#43	Key-value stores
	#136	Relational DBMS

Score	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.23
Rank	#316	Overall
	#27	Graph DBMS

Website

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

www.faircom.com/products/faircom-db

www.sqlite.org

terminusdb.com

Technical documentation

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

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

terminusdb.github.io/terminusdb/#

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

FairCom Corporation

Dwayne Richard Hipp

DataChemist Ltd.

Initial release

2016

1979

2000

2018

Current release

1703

V12, November 2020

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

11.0.0, January 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Restricted, free version available

Open Source

Public Domain

Open Source

GPL V3

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++

Prolog, Rust

Server operating systems

Linux

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

easily portable to other OSs

server-less

Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

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

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes, ANSI SQL Types, JSON, typed binary structures

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

SQL-like query language (WOQL)

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

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

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

OWL
RESTful HTTP API
WOQL (Web Object Query Language)

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

JavaScript
Python

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

none

Graph 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).

none

Journaling Streams

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

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

yes

in-memory journaling

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

Role-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.