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

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Hazelcast vs. Memcached 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

In-memory key-value store, originally intended for caching

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	6.87
Rank	#55	Overall
	#6	Key-value stores

Score	20.74
Rank	#32	Overall
	#4	Key-value stores

Score	123.20
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

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

hazelcast.com

www.memcached.org

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

github.com/memcached/memcached/wiki

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Hazelcast

Danga Interactive

originally developed by Brad Fitzpatrick for LiveJournal

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2008

2003

2014

Current release

1703

5.3.6, November 2023

1.6.25, March 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

Open Source

BSD license

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

Server operating systems

Linux

All OS with a Java VM

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

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

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

Proprietary protocol

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

.Net
C
C++
ColdFusion
Erlang
Java
Lisp
Lua
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Events

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

Repcached, a Memcached patch, provides this functionallity

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

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

Role-based access control

yes

using SASL (Simple Authentication and Security Layer) protocol

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.