DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Lovefield vs. TimesTen vs. Transwarp Hippo

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Lovefield vs. TimesTen vs. Transwarp Hippo

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines
Name	Atos Standard Common Repository  Xexclude from comparison	Lovefield  Xexclude from comparison	TimesTen  Xexclude from comparison	Transwarp Hippo  Xexclude from comparison
	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	In-Memory RDBMS compatible to Oracle	Cloud-native distributed Vector DBMS that supports storage, retrieval, and management of massive vector-based datasets
Primary database model	Document store Key-value store	Relational DBMS	Relational DBMS	Vector DBMS
DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems Trend Chart		Score 0.33 Rank #286   Overall #131   Relational DBMS	Score 1.36 Rank #161   Overall #75   Relational DBMS	Score 0.05 Rank #386   Overall #15   Vector DBMS
Website	atos.net/en/convergence-creators/portfolio/standard-common-repository	google.github.io/­lovefield	www.oracle.com/­database/­technologies/­related/­timesten.html	www.transwarp.cn/­en/­subproduct/­hippo
Technical documentation		github.com/­google/­lovefield/­blob/­master/­docs/­spec_index.md	docs.oracle.com/­database/­timesten-18.1
Developer	Atos Convergence Creators	Google	Oracle, TimesTen Performance Software, HP originally founded in HP Labs it was acquired by Oracle in 2005
Initial release	2016	2014	1998	2023
Current release	1703	2.1.12, February 2017	11 Release 2 (11.2.2.8.0)	1.0, May 2023
License Commercial or Open Source	commercial	Open Source Apache 2.0	commercial	commercial
Cloud-based only Only available as a cloud service	no	no	no	no
DBaaS offerings (sponsored links) Database as a Service Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.
Implementation language	Java	JavaScript		C++
Server operating systems	Linux	server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js) tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari	AIX HP-UX Linux OS X Solaris SPARC/x86 Windows	Linux macOS
Data scheme	Schema and schema-less with LDAP views	yes	yes
Typing predefined data types such as float or date	optional	yes	yes	Vector, Numeric and String
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	no	no	no
Secondary indexes	yes	yes	yes	no
SQL Support of SQL	no	SQL-like query language via JavaScript builder pattern	yes	no
APIs and other access methods	LDAP		JDBC ODBC ODP.NET Oracle Call Interface (OCI)	RESTful HTTP API
Supported programming languages	All languages with LDAP bindings	JavaScript	C C++ Java PL/SQL	C++ Java Python
Server-side scripts Stored procedures	no	no	PL/SQL	no
Triggers	yes	Using read-only observers	no	no
Partitioning methods Methods for storing different data on different nodes	Sharding cell division	none	none	Sharding
Replication methods Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes	yes	none	Multi-source replication Source-replica replication
MapReduce Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods		no	no	no
Consistency concepts Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system	Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration		Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration	Immediate Consistency
Foreign keys Referential integrity	no	yes	yes	no
Transaction concepts Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data	Atomic execution of specific operations	ACID	ACID	no
Concurrency Support for concurrent manipulation of data	yes	yes	yes	yes
Durability Support for making data persistent	yes	yes, by using IndexedDB or the cloud service Firebase Realtime Database	yes by means of logfiles and checkpoints	yes
In-memory capabilities Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.	yes	yes using MemoryDB	yes	yes
User concepts Access control	LDAP bind authentication	no	fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard	Role based access control and fine grained access rights
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.

Share this page