DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. LevelDB vs. Microsoft Access vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. LevelDB vs. Microsoft Access vs. Snowflake

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

Embeddable fast key-value storage library that provides an ordered mapping from string keys to string values

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.)

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

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	2.35
Rank	#111	Overall
	#19	Key-value stores

Score	104.92
Rank	#11	Overall
	#8	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

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

github.com/google/leveldb

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

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

github.com/google/leveldb/blob/main/doc/index.md

developer.microsoft.com/en-us/access

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Google

Microsoft

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2011

1992

2014

Current release

1703

1.23, February 2021

1902 (16.0.11328.20222), March 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSD

commercial

Bundled with Microsoft Office

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++

Server operating systems

Linux

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

Windows

Not a real database server, but making use of DLLs

hosted

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

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

ADO.NET
DAO
ODBC
OLE DB

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

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

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

none

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

yes

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

but no files for transaction logging

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

with automatic compression on writes

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

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

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

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.