DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. IRONdb vs. SQLite vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. IRONdb vs. SQLite vs. TigerGraph

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.

IRONdb 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 Time Series DBMS with a focus on scalability, fault tolerance and operational simplicity

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

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

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	1.83
Rank	#139	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Website

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

www.circonus.com/solutions/time-series-database/

www.sqlite.org

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

docs.circonus.com/irondb/category/getting-started

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Circonus LLC.

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2016

2017

2000

2017

Current release

1703

V0.10.20, January 2018

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

commercial

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 and C++

C++

Server operating systems

Linux

server-less

Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

text, numeric, histograms

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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 (Circonus Analytics Query Language: CAQL)

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes, in Lua

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Automatic, metric affinity per node

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

configurable replication factor, datacenter aware

none

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 per node, eventual consistency across nodes

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

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

via file-system locks

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

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.