DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. GBase vs. Lovefield vs. Snowflake vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. GBase vs. Lovefield vs. Snowflake vs. SQLite

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

An analytical database for business intelligence with large customers in China.

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

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

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.04
Rank	#190	Overall
	#88	Relational DBMS

Score	0.32
Rank	#290	Overall
	#132	Relational DBMS

Score	123.20
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	116.01
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.gbase.cn

google.github.io/lovefield

www.snowflake.com

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

github.com/google/lovefield/blob/master/docs/spec_index.md

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Google

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2016

2014

2000

Current release

1703

GBase 8a

2.1.12, February 2017

3.45.2 (12 March 2024), March 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

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

JavaScript

Server operating systems

Linux

server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js)

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

hosted

server-less

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

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

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

JavaScript

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Using read-only observers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

yes

none

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

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

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, by using IndexedDB or the cloud service Firebase Realtime Database

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

using MemoryDB

yes

User concepts

Access control

LDAP bind authentication

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.