DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. JaguarDB vs. Titan vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. JaguarDB vs. Titan vs. Transbase

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.

Titan has been decommisioned after the takeover by Datastax. It will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking. A fork has been open-sourced as JanusGraph.

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

Titan is a Graph DBMS optimized for distributed clusters.

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Graph 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	0.15
Rank	#337	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.jaguardb.com

github.com/thinkaurelius/titan

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

Technical documentation

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/wiki

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

DataJaguar, Inc.

Aurelius, owned by DataStax

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2016

2015

2012

1987

Current release

1703

3.3 July 2023

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPL V3.0

Open Source

Apache license, version 2.0

commercial

free development license

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++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

Java

C and C++

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

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

SQL

Support of SQL

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JDBC
ODBC

Java API
TinkerPop Blueprints
TinkerPop Frames
TinkerPop Gremlin
TinkerPop Rexster

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

Clojure
Java
Python

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

via pluggable storage backends

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication

yes

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

via Faunus, a graph analytics engine

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Eventual Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graph

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

yes

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Supports various storage backends: Cassandra, HBase, Berkeley DB, Akiban, Hazelcast

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

User authentification and security via Rexster Graph Server

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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

Amazon DynamoDB Storage Backend for Titan: Distributed Graph Database | Amazon Web Services
24 August 2015, AWS Blog

Beyond Titan: The Evolution of DataStax's New Graph Database
21 June 2016, Datanami

Titan Graph Database Integration with DynamoDB: World-class Performance, Availability, and Scale for New Workloads
20 August 2015, All Things Distributed

DataStax acquires Aurelius, the startup behind the Titan graph database
3 February 2015, VentureBeat

DSE Graph review: Graph database does double duty
14 November 2019, InfoWorld

provided by Google News

Share this page