DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Heroic vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. SiteWhere vs. SwayDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Heroic vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. SiteWhere vs. SwayDB

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

Time Series DBMS built at Spotify based on Cassandra or Google Cloud Bigtable, and ElasticSearch

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

M2M integration platform for persisting/querying time series data

An embeddable, non-blocking, type-safe key-value store for single or multiple disks and in-memory storage

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.51
Rank	#255	Overall
	#21	Time Series DBMS

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#356	Overall
	#35	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#382	Overall
	#59	Key-value stores

Website

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

github.com/spotify/heroic

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

github.com/sitewhere/sitewhere

swaydb.simer.au

Technical documentation

spotify.github.io/heroic

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

sitewhere1.sitewhere.io/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Spotify

Microsoft

SiteWhere

Simer Plaha

Initial release

2016

2014

1989

2010

2018

Current release

1703

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0

Open Source

GNU Affero GPL V3.0

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

C++

Java

Scala

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

predefined scheme

schema-free

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

via Elasticsearch

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

HQL (Heroic Query Language, a JSON-based language)
HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

HTTP REST

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

Java
Kotlin
Scala

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

Sharding

based on HBase

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

none

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

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

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

Atomic execution of operations

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.