DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Infobright vs. Machbase Neo vs. OrientDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Infobright vs. Machbase Neo vs. OrientDB

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.

Description

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

High performant column-oriented DBMS for analytic workloads using MySQL or PostgreSQL as a frontend

TimeSeries DBMS for AIoT and BigData

Multi-model DBMS (Document, Graph, Key/Value)

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store

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

Score	0.96
Rank	#194	Overall
	#91	Relational DBMS

Score	0.12
Rank	#339	Overall
	#30	Time Series DBMS

Score	3.19
Rank	#93	Overall
	#16	Document stores
	#7	Graph DBMS
	#14	Key-value stores

Website

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

ignitetech.com/softwarelibrary/infobrightdb

machbase.com

orientdb.org

Technical documentation

machbase.com/dbms

www.orientdb.com/docs/last/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Ignite Technologies Inc.; formerly InfoBright Inc.

Machbase

OrientDB LTD; CallidusCloud; SAP

Initial release

2016

2005

2013

2010

Current release

1703

V8.0, August 2023

3.2.29, March 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

The open source (GPLv2) version did not support inserts/updates/deletes and was discontinued with July 2016

commercial

free test version available

Open Source

Apache version 2

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

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
Windows

Linux
macOS
Windows

All OS with a Java JDK (>= JDK 6)

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

Schema can be enforced for whole record ("schema-full") or for some fields only ("schema-hybrid")

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

Knowledge Grid Technology used instead

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language

SQL-like query language, no joins

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

gRPC
HTTP REST
JDBC
MQTT (Message Queue Telemetry Transport)
ODBC

Tinkerpop technology stack with Blueprints, Gremlin, Pipes
Java API
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C#
C++
D
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript
PHP

via ODBC
Python
R

via ODBC
Scala

.Net
C
C#
C++
Clojure
Java
JavaScript
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Java, Javascript

Triggers

yes

Hooks

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

selectable replication factor

Multi-source replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

could be achieved with distributed queries

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

relationship 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

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

volatile and lookup table

User concepts

Access control

LDAP bind authentication

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

exploiting MySQL or PostgreSQL frontend capabilities

simple password-based access control

Access rights for users and roles; record level security configurable

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

DB-Engines blog posts

Graph DBMS increased their popularity by 500% within the last 2 years
3 March 2015, Paul Andlinger

Graph DBMSs are gaining in popularity faster than any other database category
21 January 2014, Matthias Gelbmann

show all

Recent citations in the news

“Luxembourg is a perfect target area”: Korean accelerator exec
27 October 2022, Delano.lu

provided by Google News

The 12 Best Graph Databases to Consider for 2024
22 October 2023, Solutions Review

OrientDB: A Flexible and Scalable Multi-Model NoSQL DBMS
21 January 2022, Open Source For You

Comparing Graph Databases II. Part 2: ArangoDB, OrientDB, and… | by Sam Bell
20 September 2019, Towards Data Science

Mining Botnet Targeting Redis and OrientDB Servers Made Almost $1 Million
2 February 2018, BleepingComputer

ArangoDB raises $10 million for NoSQL database management
14 March 2019, VentureBeat

provided by Google News

Share this page