DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Graph Engine vs. Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics vs. Newts vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Graph Engine vs. Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics vs. Newts vs. Snowflake

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

Elastic, large scale data warehouse service leveraging the broad eco-system of SQL Server

Time Series DBMS based on Cassandra

Cloud-based data warehousing service for structured and semi-structured data

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Relational 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	20.56
Rank	#31	Overall
	#19	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#41	Time Series DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.graphengine.io

azure.microsoft.com/services/synapse-analytics

opennms.github.io/newts

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.microsoft.com/azure/synapse-analytics

github.com/OpenNMS/newts/wiki

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Microsoft

OpenNMS Group

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2010

2016

2014

Current release

1703

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

.NET and C

C++

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

.NET

hosted

Linux
OS X
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

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

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

HTTP REST
Java API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

C#
Java
PHP

Java

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Transact SQL

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

horizontal partitioning

Sharding, horizontal partitioning

Sharding

based on Cassandra

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

based on Cassandra

yes

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

based on Cassandra
Immediate Consistency

based on Cassandra

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/synapse-analytics/sql-data-warehouse/sql-data-warehouse-table-constraints

yes

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

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

yes

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable authentication

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.