DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Hive vs. Snowflake vs. Titan

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Hive vs. Snowflake vs. Titan

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.

Titan has been decommisioned after the takeover by Datastax. It will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking. A fork has been open-sourced as JanusGraph.

Description

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

data warehouse software for querying and managing large distributed datasets, built on Hadoop

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

Titan is a Graph DBMS optimized for distributed clusters.

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

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

Score	61.17
Rank	#18	Overall
	#12	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

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

hive.apache.org

www.snowflake.com

github.com/thinkaurelius/titan

Technical documentation

cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/Home

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/wiki

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Apache Software Foundation

initially developed by Facebook

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Aurelius, owned by DataStax

Initial release

2016

2012

2014

2012

Current release

1703

3.1.3, April 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2

commercial

Open Source

Apache license, version 2.0

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

hosted

Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

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

yes

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

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JDBC
ODBC
Thrift

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Java API
TinkerPop Blueprints
TinkerPop Frames
TinkerPop Gremlin
TinkerPop Rexster

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C++
Java
PHP
Python

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Clojure
Java
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions and integration of map-reduce

user defined functions

yes

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

via pluggable storage backends

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

query execution via MapReduce

yes

via Faunus, a graph analytics engine

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graph

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

Supports various storage backends: Cassandra, HBase, Berkeley DB, Akiban, Hazelcast

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, groups and roles

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

User authentification and security via Rexster Graph Server

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.