DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. OrigoDB vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. OrigoDB vs. TigerGraph

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

Database as a Service offering with high compatibility to Microsoft SQL Server

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Graph DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	77.99
Rank	#16	Overall
	#11	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#53	Document stores
	#20	Object oriented DBMS

Score	1.83
Rank	#139	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Website

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

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/azure-sql/database

origodb.com

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-sql

origodb.com/docs

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Microsoft

Robert Friberg et al

Initial release

2016

2010

2009

under the name LiveDB

2017

Current release

1703

V12

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

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++

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

Linux
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

.Net

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Transact SQL

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

yes, with always 3 replicas available

Source-replica 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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

depending on model

yes

Relationships in graphs

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

Write ahead log

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

Role based authorization

Role-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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

DB-Engines blog posts

PostgreSQL is the DBMS of the Year 2020
4 January 2021, Paul Andlinger, Matthias Gelbmann

Cloud-based DBMS's popularity grows at high rates
12 December 2019, Paul Andlinger

The popularity of cloud-based DBMSs has increased tenfold in four years
7 February 2017, Matthias Gelbmann

show all

Recent citations in the news

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

provided by Google News

Public Preview: New Azure SQL Database skills introduced to Microsoft Copilot in Azure | Azure updates
21 May 2024, azure.microsoft.com

Copilot in Azure SQL Database in Private Preview
27 March 2024, InfoQ.com

Microsoft unveils Copilot for Azure SQL Database
27 March 2024, InfoWorld

Azure SQL Database migration to OCI - resources estimation and migration approach
11 January 2024, Oracle

Microsoft Build 2024: Cosmos DB for NoSQL gets vector search
21 May 2024, InfoWorld

provided by Google News

TigerGraph Unveils CoPilot, Version 4.0, and New CEO
30 April 2024, Datanami

TigerGraph unveils GenAI assistant, introduces new CEO
30 April 2024, TechTarget

How TigerGraph CoPilot enables graph-augmented AI
30 April 2024, InfoWorld

TigerGraph Bolsters DB for Enterprise Graph Workloads
1 November 2023, Datanami

Aerospike takes on Neo4j and TigerGraph with launch of graph database
20 June 2023, SiliconANGLE News

provided by Google News

Share this page