DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. LevelDB vs. TimescaleDB vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. LevelDB vs. TimescaleDB vs. Yaacomo

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.

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is 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

A time series DBMS optimized for fast ingest and complex queries, based on PostgreSQL

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

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	4.64
Rank	#71	Overall
	#4	Time Series DBMS

Website

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

github.com/google/leveldb

www.timescale.com

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

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

docs.timescale.com

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Google

Timescale

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2016

2011

2017

2009

Current release

1703

1.23, February 2021

2.13.0, November 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSD

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

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++

Server operating systems

Linux

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

numerics, strings, booleans, arrays, JSON blobs, geospatial dimensions, currencies, binary data, other complex data types

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

full PostgreSQL SQL syntax

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

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

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java

JDBC
JavaScript
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions, PL/pgSQL, PL/Tcl, PL/Perl, PL/Python, PL/Java, PL/PHP, PL/R, PL/Ruby, PL/Scheme, PL/Unix shell

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

yes, across time and space (hash partitioning) attributes

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Source-replica replication with hot standby and reads on replicas

Source-replica replication

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

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

with automatic compression on writes

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

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

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

provided by Google News

LevelDB in Ruby — SitePoint
22 October 2014, SitePoint

Microsoft Teams stores auth tokens as cleartext in Windows, Linux, Macs
14 September 2022, BleepingComputer

Pliops unveils XDP-Rocks for RocksDB – Blocks and Files
19 October 2022, Blocks & Files

XanMod, Liquorix Kernels Offer Some Advantages On AMD Ryzen 5 Notebook
26 July 2021, Phoronix

Rust-Based Info Stealers Abuse GitHub Codespaces
19 May 2023, Trend Micro

provided by Google News

TimescaleDB Is a Vector Database Now, Too
25 September 2023, Datanami

Timescale Acquires PopSQL to Bring a Modern, Collaborative SQL GUI to PostgreSQL Developers
4 April 2024, PR Newswire

TimescaleDB for Azure Database for PostgreSQL to power IoT and time-series workloads | Azure updates
18 March 2019, Microsoft

Timescale Valuation Rockets to Over $1B with $110M Round, Marking the Explosive Rise of Time-Series Data
22 February 2022, Business Wire

Visualizing IoT Data at Scale With Hopara and TimescaleDB
16 May 2023, Embedded Computing Design

provided by Google News

Share this page