DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Google Cloud Datastore vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. SwayDB vs. Teradata

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Google Cloud Datastore vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. SwayDB vs. Teradata

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

Automatically scaling NoSQL Database as a Service (DBaaS) on the Google Cloud Platform

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

An embeddable, non-blocking, type-safe key-value store for single or multiple disks and in-memory storage

A hybrid cloud data analytics software platform (Teradata Vantage)

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	4.49
Rank	#79	Overall
	#12	Document stores

Score	829.80
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	0.04
Rank	#373	Overall
	#57	Key-value stores

Score	47.84
Rank	#21	Overall
	#15	Relational DBMS

Website

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

cloud.google.com/datastore

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

swaydb.simer.au

www.teradata.com

Technical documentation

cloud.google.com/datastore/docs

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

docs.teradata.com

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Google

Microsoft

Simer Plaha

Teradata

Initial release

2016

2008

1989

2018

1984

Current release

1703

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

Teradata Vantage 1.0 MU2, January 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

GNU Affero 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++

Scala

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

Linux
Windows

hosted
Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes, details here

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

Join-index to prejoin tables, aggregate index, sparse index, hash index

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language (GQL)

yes

SQL 2016 + extensions

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

.NET Client API
HTTP REST
JDBC
JMS Adapter
ODBC
OLE DB

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

Java
Kotlin
Scala

C
C++
Cobol
Java (JDBC-ODBC)
Perl
PL/1
Python
R
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

using Google App Engine

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

yes

UDFs, stored procedures, table functions in parallel

Triggers

yes

Callbacks using the Google Apps Engine

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

none

Sharding

Hashing

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication using Paxos

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

none

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

using Google Cloud Dataflow

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on type of query and configuration

Strong Consistency is default for entity lookups and queries within an Entity Group (but can instead be made eventually consistent). Other queries are always eventual consistent.

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

via ReferenceProperties or Ancestor paths

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Serializable Isolation within Transactions, Read Committed outside of Transactions

ACID

Atomic execution of operations

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 rights for users, groups and roles based on Google Cloud Identity and Access Management (IAM)

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.