DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. JanusGraph vs. Linter vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. JanusGraph vs. Linter vs. SQLite

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

A Graph DBMS optimized for distributed clusters

It was forked from the latest code base of Titan in January 2017

RDBMS for high security requirements

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

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

Score	1.94
Rank	#129	Overall
	#12	Graph DBMS

Score	0.09
Rank	#346	Overall
	#152	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

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

janusgraph.org

linter.ru

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

docs.janusgraph.org

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Linux Foundation; originally developed as Titan by Aurelius

relex.ru

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2016

2017

1990

2000

Current release

1703

0.6.3, February 2023

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

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++

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

AIX
Android
BSD
HP Open VMS
iOS
Linux
OS X
VxWorks
Windows

server-less

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

Java API
TinkerPop Blueprints
TinkerPop Frames
TinkerPop Gremlin
TinkerPop Rexster

ADO.NET
JDBC
LINQ
ODBC
OLE DB
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Clojure
Java
Python

C
C#
C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Qt
Ruby
Tcl

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax with the possibility to convert from PL/SQL

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

yes

depending on the used storage backend (e.g. Cassandra, HBase, BerkeleyDB)

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

none

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
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

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

via file-system locks

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

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.