DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. JanusGraph vs. OrigoDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. JanusGraph vs. OrigoDB

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 distributed reliable key-value store

A Graph DBMS optimized for distributed clusters

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

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Graph DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

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

Score	7.03
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	2.02
Rank	#125	Overall
	#12	Graph DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#380	Overall
	#50	Document stores
	#19	Object oriented DBMS

Website

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

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

janusgraph.org

origodb.com

Technical documentation

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

docs.janusgraph.org

origodb.com/docs

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Linux Foundation; originally developed as Titan by Aurelius

Robert Friberg et al

Initial release

2016

2017

2009

under the name LiveDB

Current release

1703

3.4, August 2019

0.6.3, February 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

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

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

Java API
TinkerPop Blueprints
TinkerPop Frames
TinkerPop Gremlin
TinkerPop Rexster

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

Clojure
Java
Python

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

yes, watching key changes

yes

Domain Events

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)

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

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

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

depending on model

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

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

yes

Write ahead log

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

Role based authorization

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

Recent citations in the news

Monitor Amazon EKS Control Plane metrics using AWS Open Source monitoring services | Amazon Web Services
12 October 2023, AWS Blog

ETCD guidelines: RBI seeks to balance rupee stability, competitiveness | Policy Circle
8 April 2024, Policy Circle

Apache APISIX Without etcd?
27 July 2023, hackernoon.com

RBI reiterates need for underlying forex exposure for rupee derivatives transactions | Stock Market News
5 April 2024, Mint

Killing a market, softly: How an RBI communique could end India's thriving ETCD market
7 April 2024, IndiaTimes

provided by Google News

Simple Deployment of a Graph Database: JanusGraph
12 October 2020, Towards Data Science

Database Deep Dives: JanusGraph
8 August 2019, ibm.com

JanusGraph Picks Up Where TitanDB Left Off
13 January 2017, Datanami

Nordstrom Builds Flexible Backend Ops with Kubernetes, Spark and JanusGraph
3 October 2019, The New Stack

Compose for JanusGraph arrives on Bluemix
15 September 2017, ibm.com

provided by Google News

Share this page