DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Hazelcast vs. Lovefield vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Hazelcast vs. Lovefield vs. Snowflake

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 widely adopted in-memory data grid

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

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

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

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

Score	5.97
Rank	#57	Overall
	#6	Key-value stores

Score	0.29
Rank	#293	Overall
	#133	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

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

hazelcast.com

google.github.io/lovefield

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

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

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Hazelcast

Google

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2008

2014

Current release

1703

5.3.6, November 2023

2.1.12, February 2017

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

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

JavaScript

Server operating systems

Linux

All OS with a Java VM

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

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

hosted

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

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

the object must implement a serialization strategy

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

JavaScript

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Events

Using read-only observers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

none

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Replicated Map

none

yes

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 or Eventual Consistency selectable by user

Raft Consensus Algorithm

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

one or two-phase-commit; repeatable reads; read commited

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

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

Role-based access control

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.