DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Kingbase vs. OpenQM vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Kingbase vs. OpenQM 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

An enterprise-class RDBMS compatible with PostgreSQL and Oracle and widely used in China.

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Multivalue DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.50
Rank	#257	Overall
	#119	Relational DBMS

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.kingbase.com.cn

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

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

BeiJing KINGBASE Information technologies inc.

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2016

1999

1993

2000

Current release

1703

V8.0, August 2021

3.4-12

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

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 Java

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
Windows

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

server-less

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

with some exceptions

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

Standard with numerous extensions

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

ADO.NET
gokb
JDBC
kdbndp
ODBC
PDI
PDO
Pro*C
psycopg2
QT

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

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

user defined functions

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

horizontal partitioning (by range, list and hash) and vertical partitioning

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

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

via file-system locks

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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.