DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Firebolt vs. Postgres-XL vs. Prometheus vs. Sequoiadb

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Firebolt vs. Postgres-XL vs. Prometheus vs. Sequoiadb

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

Based on PostgreSQL enhanced with MPP and write-scale-out cluster features

Open-source Time Series DBMS and monitoring system

NewSQL database with distributed OLTP and SQL

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Document store
Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	1.73
Rank	#140	Overall
	#63	Relational DBMS

Score	0.53
Rank	#254	Overall
	#117	Relational DBMS

Score	7.69
Rank	#50	Overall
	#3	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.50
Rank	#258	Overall
	#41	Document stores
	#120	Relational DBMS

Website

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

Technical documentation

docs.firebolt.io

www.postgres-xl.org/documentation

prometheus.io/docs

www.sequoiadb.com/en/index.php?m=Files&a=index

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Firebolt Analytics Inc.

Sequoiadb Ltd.

Initial release

2016

2020

2014

since 2012, originally named StormDB

2015

2013

Current release

1703

10 R1, October 2018

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Mozilla public license

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Server: AGPL; Client: Apache V2

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++

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

Linux
macOS

Linux
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

Numeric data only

yes

oid, date, timestamp, binary, regex

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

XML type, but no XML query functionality

Import of XML data possible

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

distributed, parallel query execution

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

.Net
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

proprietary protocol using JSON

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Erlang
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
Tcl

.Net
C++
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Ruby

.Net
C++
Java
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

JavaScript

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

depending on storage layer

yes

by Federation

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

none

Eventual 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

MVCC

Document is locked during a transaction

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

simple password-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.

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

Infographic: What makes a Mobile Operator's setup future proof?
10 February 2024, Atos

provided by Google News

10 Best Data Pipeline Tools of 2024 to Boost Your Productivity
20 February 2024, Datamation

Cloud data unicorn Firebolt fires dozens of employees
7 September 2022, CTech

Firebolt, a data warehouse startup, raises $100M at a $1.4B valuation for faster, cheaper analytics on large data sets
26 January 2022, TechCrunch

Firebolt vs Snowflake | Data Warehousing Platform Comparison
1 April 2022, TechRepublic

Firebolt, Israeli Cloud Data Warehouse Startup Forklifts Forward
5 January 2021, Forbes

provided by Google News

VTEX scales to 150 million metrics using Amazon Managed Service for Prometheus | Amazon Web Services
10 March 2024, AWS Blog

OpenTelemetry vs. Prometheus: You can’t fix what you can’t see
29 March 2024, IBM

VictoriaMetrics Offers Prometheus Replacement for Time Series Monitoring
17 July 2023, The New Stack

Linux System Monitoring with Prometheus, Grafana, and collectd
1 February 2024, Linux Journal

A Comprehensive Comparison of Prometheus and Grafana in 2023
8 December 2023, hackernoon.com

provided by Google News

Share this page