DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Graph Engine vs. Lovefield vs. OrientDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Graph Engine vs. Lovefield vs. OrientDB

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.

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

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

Multi-model DBMS (Document, Graph, Key/Value)

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store

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	0.29
Rank	#293	Overall
	#133	Relational DBMS

Score	3.19
Rank	#93	Overall
	#16	Document stores
	#7	Graph DBMS
	#14	Key-value stores

Website

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

www.graphengine.io

google.github.io/lovefield

orientdb.org

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

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

www.orientdb.com/docs/last/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Microsoft

Google

OrientDB LTD; CallidusCloud; SAP

Initial release

2016

2010

2014

2010

Current release

1703

2.1.12, February 2017

3.2.29, March 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Apache version 2

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

JavaScript

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

.NET

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

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

All OS with a Java JDK (>= JDK 6)

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

Schema can be enforced for whole record ("schema-full") or for some fields only ("schema-hybrid")

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

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

SQL-like query language, no joins

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

RESTful HTTP API

Tinkerpop technology stack with Blueprints, Gremlin, Pipes
Java API
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

JavaScript

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Java, Javascript

Triggers

yes

Using read-only observers

Hooks

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

horizontal partitioning

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Multi-source replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

could be achieved with distributed queries

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

relationship in graphs

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

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, 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

User concepts

Access control

LDAP bind authentication

Access rights for users and roles; record level security configurable

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

DB-Engines blog posts

Graph DBMS increased their popularity by 500% within the last 2 years
3 March 2015, Paul Andlinger

Graph DBMSs are gaining in popularity faster than any other database category
21 January 2014, Matthias Gelbmann

show all

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

The 12 Best Graph Databases to Consider for 2024
22 October 2023, Solutions Review

OrientDB: A Flexible and Scalable Multi-Model NoSQL DBMS
21 January 2022, Open Source For You

Comparing Graph Databases II. Part 2: ArangoDB, OrientDB, and… | by Sam Bell
20 September 2019, Towards Data Science

HNS IoT Botnet Evolves, Goes Cross-Platform
2 December 2023, Dark Reading

ArangoDB raises $10 million for NoSQL database management
14 March 2019, VentureBeat

provided by Google News

Share this page