DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. JanusGraph vs. Microsoft Access vs. ObjectBox vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. JanusGraph vs. Microsoft Access vs. ObjectBox 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

A Graph DBMS optimized for distributed clusters

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

Microsoft Access combines a backend RDBMS (JET / ACE Engine) with a GUI frontend for data manipulation and queries.

The Access frontend is often used for accessing other datasources (DBMS, Excel, etc.)

Extremely fast embedded database for small devices, IoT and Mobile

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

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Secondary database models

Time Series DBMS

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

Score	1.94
Rank	#129	Overall
	#12	Graph DBMS

Score	104.92
Rank	#11	Overall
	#8	Relational DBMS

Score	1.20
Rank	#170	Overall
	#5	Object oriented DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

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

janusgraph.org

www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/access

objectbox.io

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

docs.janusgraph.org

developer.microsoft.com/en-us/access

docs.objectbox.io

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Linux Foundation; originally developed as Titan by Aurelius

Microsoft

ObjectBox Limited

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2017

1992

2017

2014

Current release

1703

0.6.3, February 2023

1902 (16.0.11328.20222), March 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Bundled with Microsoft Office

Open Source

Apache License 2.0

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++

C and C++

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

Windows

Not a real database server, but making use of DLLs

Android
iOS
Linux
macOS
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

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

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

yes

but not compliant to any SQL standard

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

Java API
TinkerPop Blueprints
TinkerPop Frames
TinkerPop Gremlin
TinkerPop Rexster

ADO.NET
DAO
ODBC
OLE DB

Proprietary native API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Clojure
Java
Python

C
C#
C++
Delphi
Java (JDBC-ODBC)
VBA
Visual Basic.NET

C
C++
Dart
Go
Java
JavaScript

planned (as of Jan 2019)
Kotlin
Python

planned (as of Jan 2019)
Swift

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

since Access 2010 using the ACE-engine

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

since Access 2010 using the ACE-engine

similar concept for controling cloud resources

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

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

online/offline synchronization between client and server

yes

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

but no files for transaction logging

ACID

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

but no files for transaction logging

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

a simple user-level security was built in till version Access 2003

yes

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

More information provided by the system vendor

News

Edge AI: The era of on-device AI
23 April 2024

In-Memory Database Use Cases
15 February 2024

Data Viewer for Objects – announcing ObjectBox Admin
14 November 2023

Vector Databases for Edge AI
9 August 2023

Vector Database Release for Flutter / Dart + Python
13 June 2023

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.