DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Google BigQuery vs. JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Google BigQuery vs. JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

Large scale data warehouse service with append-only tables

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

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

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Wide column store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	60.38
Rank	#19	Overall
	#13	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores
	#13	Vector DBMS

Score	4.48
Rank	#75	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Website

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

cloud.google.com/bigquery

www.jaguardb.com

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

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Google

DataJaguar, Inc.

Microsoft

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2016

2010

2015

2012

2009

Current release

1703

3.3 July 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPL V3.0

commercial

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++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

Linux

hosted

Android
Linux
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

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
Java
JavaScript
Objective-C
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in JavaScript

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication

yes

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

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

Eventual Consistency

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

Since BigQuery is designed for querying data

optimistic locking

ACID

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

Access privileges (owner, writer, reader) on dataset, table or view level

Google Cloud Identity & Access Management (IAM)

rights management via user accounts

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.