DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. HarperDB vs. Kyligence Enterprise vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. HarperDB vs. Kyligence Enterprise vs. SQLite

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

Ultra-low latency distributed database with an intuitive REST API supporting NoSQL and SQL (including joins). Deployment of functions and databases simultaneously with a consolidated node-level architecture.

A distributed analytics engine for big data, built on top of Apache Kylin

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.55
Rank	#248	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	0.40
Rank	#269	Overall
	#124	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.harperdb.io

kyligence.io/kyligence-enterprise

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

docs.harperdb.io/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

HarperDB

Kyligence, Inc.

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2016

2017

2016

2000

Current release

1703

3.1, August 2021

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

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

Node.js

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
OS X

Linux

server-less

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

dynamic schema

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

JSON data types

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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 data manipulation statements

ANSI SQL for queries (using Apache Calcite)

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

JDBC
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C#
C++
ColdFusion
D
Dart
Delphi
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
MatLab
Objective C
Perl
PHP
PowerShell
Prolog
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

A table resides as a whole on one (or more) nodes in a cluster

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

none

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

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

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, using LMDB

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 and roles

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.