DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Linter vs. Snowflake vs. SQLite vs. TempoIQ

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Linter vs. Snowflake vs. SQLite vs. TempoIQ

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

TempoIQ seems to be decommissioned. It 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

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

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Scalable analytics DBMS for sensor data, provided as a service (SaaS)

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.09
Rank	#346	Overall
	#152	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

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

linter.ru

www.snowflake.com

www.sqlite.org

tempoiq.com (offline)

Technical documentation

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

relex.ru

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Dwayne Richard Hipp

TempoIQ

Initial release

2016

1990

2014

2000

2012

Current release

1703

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

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 and C++

Server operating systems

Linux

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

hosted

server-less

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

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

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
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

C#
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax with the possibility to convert from PL/SQL

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Realtime Alerts

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

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

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

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

simple authentication-based access control

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.