DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Graph Engine vs. Hypertable vs. JaguarDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Graph Engine vs. Hypertable vs. JaguarDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

Hypertable has stopped its further development with March 2016 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

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

An open source BigTable implementation based on distributed file systems such as Hadoop

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Wide column store

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

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

Score	0.61
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

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

Website

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

www.graphengine.io

www.jaguardb.com

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Microsoft

Hypertable Inc.

DataJaguar, Inc.

Initial release

2016

2010

2009

2015

Current release

1703

0.9.8.11, March 2016

3.3 July 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

Open Source

GPL V3.0

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

Java

.NET and C

C++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

Server operating systems

Linux

.NET

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

Linux

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

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

RESTful HTTP API

C++ API
Thrift

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

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

selectable replication factor on file system level

Multi-source replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

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

rights management via user accounts

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

Trinity
2 June 2023, microsoft.com

Open source Microsoft Graph Engine takes on Neo4j
13 February 2017, InfoWorld

Aerospike Is Now a Graph Database, Too
21 June 2023, Datanami

IBM releases Graph, a service that can outperform SQL databases
27 July 2016, GeekWire

The graph analytics landscape 2019 - DataScienceCentral.com
27 February 2019, Data Science Central

provided by Google News

SQL and TimescaleDB. This article takes a closer look into… | by Alibaba Cloud
31 July 2019, DataDrivenInvestor

TimescaleDB goes distributed; implements ‘Chunking’ over ‘Sharding’ for scaling-out
22 August 2019, Packt Hub

Decorate your Windows XP with Hyperdesk
30 July 2008, CNET

Comparing Different Time-Series Databases
10 February 2022, hackernoon.com

The Collective: Customize Your Computer & Your Phone With Star Trek
18 March 2009, TrekMovie

provided by Google News

Share this page