DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. Hyprcubd vs. searchxml vs. SiteWhere

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. Hyprcubd vs. searchxml vs. SiteWhere

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Hyprcubd seems to be discontinued. Therefore it is excluded from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

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

A distributed reliable key-value store

Serverless Time Series DBMS

DBMS for structured and unstructured content wrapped with an application server

M2M integration platform for persisting/querying time series data

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Native XML DBMS
Search engine

Time Series DBMS

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

Score	7.25
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#7	Native XML DBMS
	#25	Search engines

Score	0.06
Rank	#356	Overall
	#35	Time Series DBMS

Website

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

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

hyprcubd.com (offline)

www.searchxml.net/category/products

github.com/sitewhere/sitewhere

Technical documentation

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

www.searchxml.net/support/handouts

sitewhere1.sitewhere.io/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Hyprcubd, Inc.

informationpartners gmbh

SiteWhere

Initial release

2016

2015

2010

Current release

1703

3.4, August 2019

1.0

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0

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

C++

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

hosted

Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

schema-free

predefined scheme

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

time, int, uint, float, string

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 query language

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

gRPC (https)

RESTful HTTP API
WebDAV
XQuery
XSLT

HTTP REST

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

C++

most other programming languages supported via APIs

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

on the application server

Triggers

yes

yes, watching key changes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

based on HBase

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

yes

sychronisation to multiple collections

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

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

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

Atomic execution of specific operations

multiple readers, single writer

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

token access

Domain, group and role-based access control at the document level and for application services

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.

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

Infographic: What makes a Mobile Operator's setup future proof?
10 February 2024, Atos

provided by Google News

Monitor Amazon EKS Control Plane metrics using AWS Open Source monitoring services | Amazon Web Services
12 October 2023, AWS Blog

RBI reiterates need for underlying forex exposure for rupee derivatives transactions | Stock Market News
5 April 2024, Mint

Killing a market, softly: How an RBI communique could end India's thriving ETCD market
7 April 2024, The Economic Times

6 Cool Kubernetes Operators and How to Use Them
22 January 2024, hackernoon.com

Public preview: AKS cluster control plane metrics in managed Prometheus | Azure updates
12 February 2024, Microsoft

provided by Google News

SiteWhere: An open platform for connected devices
11 July 2017, Open Source For You

Ten Popular IoT Platforms You Should be Aware of
27 March 2023, Open Source For You

11 Best Open source IoT Platforms To Develop Smart Projects
9 March 2023, H2S Media

provided by Google News

Share this page