DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Linter vs. OpenQM vs. RavenDB

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

RDBMS for high security requirements

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

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Multivalue DBMS

Document store

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.12
Rank	#350	Overall
	#152	Relational DBMS

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	2.84
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Website

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

linter.ru

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

ravendb.net

Technical documentation

ravendb.net/docs

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

relex.ru

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Hibernating Rhinos

Initial release

2016

1990

1993

2010

Current release

1703

3.4-12

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

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

AIX
Android
BSD
HP Open VMS
iOS
Linux
OS X
VxWorks
Windows

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

with some exceptions

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

SQL-like query language (RQL)

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

ADO.NET
JDBC
LINQ
ODBC
OLE DB
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)

.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
C#
C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Qt
Ruby
Tcl

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax with the possibility to convert from PL/SQL

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

yes

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

yes

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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

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

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

RavenDB Adds Graph Queries
15 May 2019, Datanami

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

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

provided by Google News

Share this page