DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Lovefield vs. Sphinx vs. SQLite vs. SwayDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Lovefield vs. Sphinx vs. SQLite vs. SwayDB

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 relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

Open source search engine for searching in data from different sources, e.g. relational databases

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

An embeddable, non-blocking, type-safe key-value store for single or multiple disks and in-memory storage

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

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

Score	0.29
Rank	#293	Overall
	#133	Relational DBMS

Score	5.98
Rank	#56	Overall
	#5	Search engines

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#382	Overall
	#59	Key-value stores

Website

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

google.github.io/lovefield

sphinxsearch.com

www.sqlite.org

swaydb.simer.au

Technical documentation

github.com/google/lovefield/blob/master/docs/spec_index.md

sphinxsearch.com/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Google

Sphinx Technologies Inc.

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Simer Plaha

Initial release

2016

2014

2001

2000

2018

Current release

1703

2.1.12, February 2017

3.5.1, February 2023

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

GPL version 2, commercial licence available

Open Source

Public Domain

Open Source

GNU Affero GPL V3.0

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

JavaScript

C++

Scala

Server operating systems

Linux

server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js)

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

FreeBSD
Linux
NetBSD
OS X
Solaris
Windows

server-less

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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

full-text index on all search fields

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

SQL-like query language (SphinxQL)

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

Proprietary protocol

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

JavaScript

C++

unofficial client library
Java
Perl

unofficial client library
PHP
Python
Ruby

unofficial client library

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

Java
Kotlin
Scala

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Triggers

yes

Using read-only observers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Sharding

Partitioning is done manually, search queries against distributed index is supported

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

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

Atomic execution of operations

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, by using IndexedDB or the cloud service Firebase Realtime Database

yes

The original contents of fields are not stored in the Sphinx index.

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

using MemoryDB

yes

User concepts

Access control

LDAP bind 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.