DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. JaguarDB vs. jBASE vs. Netezza vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. JaguarDB vs. jBASE vs. Netezza vs. Snowflake

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

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

A robust multi-value DBMS comprising development tools and middleware

Data warehouse and analytics appliance part of IBM PureSystems

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

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Multivalue DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.09
Rank	#356	Overall
	#53	Key-value stores
	#13	Vector DBMS

Score	1.43
Rank	#160	Overall
	#3	Multivalue DBMS

Score	10.18
Rank	#46	Overall
	#29	Relational DBMS

Score	123.20
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.jaguardb.com

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

www.ibm.com/products/netezza

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

docs.rocketsoftware.com/bundle?labelkey=jbase_5.9

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

DataJaguar, Inc.

Rocket Software (formerly Zumasys)

IBM

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2015

1991

2000

2014

Current release

1703

3.3 July 2023

5.7

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPL V3.0

commercial

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++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

Server operating systems

Linux

AIX
Linux
Windows

Linux

included in appliance

hosted

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

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

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

Embedded SQL for jBASE in BASIC

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary protocol
RESTful HTTP API
SOAP-based API

JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

.Net
Basic
Jabbascript
Java

C
C++
Fortran
Java
Lua
Perl
Python
R

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication

yes

Source-replica replication

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

Eventual Consistency

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

rights management via user accounts

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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

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.