DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Netezza vs. Postgres-XL vs. SpatiaLite

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Netezza vs. Postgres-XL vs. SpatiaLite

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

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

Data warehouse and analytics appliance part of IBM PureSystems

Based on PostgreSQL enhanced with MPP and write-scale-out cluster features

Spatial extension of SQLite

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Spatial DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	4.92
Rank	#73	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	10.18
Rank	#46	Overall
	#29	Relational DBMS

Score	0.52
Rank	#256	Overall
	#117	Relational DBMS

Score	1.72
Rank	#149	Overall
	#3	Spatial DBMS

Website

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

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

www.ibm.com/products/netezza

www.postgres-xl.org

www.gaia-gis.it/fossil/libspatialite/index

Technical documentation

www.postgres-xl.org/documentation

www.gaia-gis.it/gaia-sins/spatialite_topics.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Microsoft

IBM

Alessandro Furieri

Initial release

2016

2012

2000

2014

since 2012, originally named StormDB

2008

Current release

1703

10 R1, October 2018

5.0.0, August 2020

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Mozilla public license

Open Source

MPL 1.1, GPL v2.0 or LGPL v2.1

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

included in appliance

Linux
macOS

server-less

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

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

XML type, but no XML query functionality

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

distributed, parallel query execution

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

C
C++
Fortran
Java
Lua
Perl
Python
R

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Erlang
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

Source-replica replication

none

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

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

Atomic execution of specific operations

optimistic locking

ACID

MVCC

ACID

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

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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

Spatial database management systems
6 April 2021, Matthias Gelbmann

show all

Recent citations in the news

Azure Cosmos DB Data Migration tool imports from Azure Table storage | Azure updates
5 May 2015, azure.microsoft.com

How to use Azure Table storage in .Net
14 January 2019, InfoWorld

How to Use C# Azure.Data.Tables SDK with Azure Cosmos DB
9 July 2021, hackernoon.com

How to write data to Azure Table Store with an Azure Function
14 April 2017, Experts Exchange

Testing Precompiled Azure Functions Locally with Storage Emulator
8 March 2018, Visual Studio Magazine

provided by Google News

IBM announces availability of the high-performance, cloud-native Netezza Performance Server as a Service on AWS
11 July 2023, IBM

AWS and IBM Netezza come out in support of Iceberg in table format face-off
1 August 2023, The Register

Migrating your Netezza data warehouse to Amazon Redshift | Amazon Web Services
27 May 2020, AWS Blog

U.S. Navy Chooses Yellowbrick, Sunsets IBM Netezza
22 March 2023, Business Wire

IBM Brings Back a Netezza, Attacks Yellowbrick
29 June 2020, Datanami

provided by Google News

Share this page