DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. LeanXcale vs. ObjectBox vs. RavenDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. LeanXcale vs. ObjectBox vs. RavenDB

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 highly scalable full ACID SQL database with fast NoSQL data ingestion and GIS capabilities

Extremely fast embedded database for small devices, IoT and Mobile

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Object oriented DBMS

Document store

Secondary database models

Time Series DBMS

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.29
Rank	#291	Overall
	#41	Key-value stores
	#132	Relational DBMS

Score	1.20
Rank	#170	Overall
	#5	Object oriented DBMS

Score	2.92
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Website

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

www.leanxcale.com

objectbox.io

ravendb.net

Technical documentation

docs.objectbox.io

ravendb.net/docs

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

LeanXcale

ObjectBox Limited

Hibernating Rhinos

Initial release

2016

2015

2017

2010

Current release

1703

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache License 2.0

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

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

Android
iOS
Linux
macOS
Windows

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

schema-free

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

through Apache Derby

SQL-like query language (RQL)

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

JDBC
Kafka Connector
ODBC
proprietary key/value interface
Spark Connector

Proprietary native API

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
Java
Scala

C
C++
Dart
Go
Java
JavaScript

planned (as of Jan 2019)
Kotlin
Python

planned (as of Jan 2019)
Swift

.Net
C#
F#
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

online/offline synchronization between client and server

Multi-source replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

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

yes

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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.

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

Infographic: What makes a Mobile Operator's setup future proof?
10 February 2024, Atos

provided by Google News

Combining operational and analytical databases in a single platform
26 May 2017, Cordis News

provided by Google News

Industrial IoT (IIoT) edge solution for railway operators – a Kapsch ObjectBox Case Study
21 June 2019, 1E9

A Quick Look at Open Source Databases for Mobile App Development
29 April 2018, Open Source For You

provided by Google News

RavenDB Launches Version 6.0 Lightning Fast Queries, Data Integrations, Corax Indexing Engine, and Sharding
3 October 2023, PR Newswire

RavenDB Welcomes David Baruc as Chief Revenue Officer: Seasoned Tech Leader to Drive Global Sales and ...
13 June 2023, PR Newswire

Oren Eini on RavenDB, Including Consistency Guarantees and C# as the Implementation Language
23 May 2022, InfoQ.com

Install the NoSQL RavenDB Data System
14 May 2021, The New Stack

How I Created a RavenDB Python Client
23 September 2016, Visual Studio Magazine

provided by Google News

Share this page