DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. Google BigQuery vs. SiteWhere vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. Google BigQuery vs. SiteWhere vs. Transbase

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

A distributed reliable key-value store

Large scale data warehouse service with append-only tables

M2M integration platform for persisting/querying time series data

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

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

Score	7.25
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	60.38
Rank	#19	Overall
	#13	Relational DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#356	Overall
	#35	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.11
Rank	#341	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Website

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

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

cloud.google.com/bigquery

github.com/sitewhere/sitewhere

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

Technical documentation

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs

sitewhere1.sitewhere.io/index.html

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Google

SiteWhere

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2016

2010

1987

Current release

1703

3.4, August 2019

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0

commercial

free development license

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

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

hosted

Linux
OS X
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

predefined scheme

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

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

HTTP REST

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

.Net
Java
JavaScript
Objective-C
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in JavaScript

yes

Triggers

yes

yes, watching key changes

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

based on HBase

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

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

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

yes

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)

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.