DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Hypertable vs. MonetDB vs. OpenQM

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Hypertable vs. MonetDB vs. OpenQM

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.

Hypertable has stopped its further development with March 2016 and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

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

An open source BigTable implementation based on distributed file systems such as Hadoop

A relational database management system that stores data in columns

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Multivalue DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	1.72
Rank	#141	Overall
	#64	Relational DBMS

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Website

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

www.monetdb.org

www.rocketsoftware.com/products/rocket-multivalue-application-development-platform/rocket-open-qm

Technical documentation

www.monetdb.org/Documentation

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Hypertable Inc.

MonetDB BV

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Initial release

2016

2009

2004

1993

Current release

1703

0.9.8.11, March 2016

Dec2023 (11.49), December 2023

3.4-12

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

Open Source

Mozilla Public License 2.0

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

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++

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

with some exceptions

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

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL 2003 with some extensions

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

C++ API
Thrift

JDBC
native C library

MAPI library (MonetDB application programming interface)
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes, in SQL, C, R

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

Sharding via remote tables

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor on file system level

none

Source-replica replication available in experimental status

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

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

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

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

TimescaleDB goes distributed; implements ‘Chunking’ over ‘Sharding’ for scaling-out
22 August 2019, Packt Hub

SQL and TimescaleDB. This article takes a closer look into… | by Alibaba Cloud
31 July 2019, DataDrivenInvestor

Decorate your Windows XP with Hyperdesk
30 July 2008, CNET

The Collective: Customize Your Computer & Your Phone With Star Trek
18 March 2009, TrekMovie

5 Free NoSQL Database Certification Courses in 2024 – AIM
31 January 2024, Analytics India Magazine

provided by Google News

In 2024 the MonetDB Foundation was established for the preservation, maintenance and further development of the ...
31 January 2024, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI)

MonetDB Secures Investment From (and Partners With) ServiceNow
9 December 2021, Datanami

PostgreSQL, MonetDB, and Too-Big-for-Memory Data in R - Part I - DataScienceCentral.com
6 April 2018, Data Science Central

How MonetDB Exploits Modern CPU Performance | by Dwi Prasetyo Adi Nugroho
14 January 2020, Towards Data Science

MonetDB Solutions secures investment from ServiceNow
30 September 2019, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI)

provided by Google News

Share this page