DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Firebolt vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. MySQL

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Firebolt vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. MySQL

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

Highly scalable cloud data warehouse and analytics product

Forked from Clickhouse

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

Widely used open source RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	1.49
Rank	#148	Overall
	#68	Relational DBMS

Score	3.55
Rank	#80	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	1029.49
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.firebolt.io

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

www.mysql.com

Technical documentation

docs.firebolt.io

dev.mysql.com/doc

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Firebolt Analytics Inc.

Microsoft

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Initial release

2016

2020

2012

1995

Current release

1703

9.0.0, July 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are 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 and C++

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

yes

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

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

.Net
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

.Net
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

depending on storage layer

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

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

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

optimistic locking

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.