DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. OpenTSDB vs. Sequoiadb

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. OpenTSDB vs. Sequoiadb

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines
Name	Atos Standard Common Repository  Xexclude from comparison	Microsoft Azure Table Storage  Xexclude from comparison	OpenTSDB  Xexclude from comparison	Sequoiadb  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	A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets	Scalable Time Series DBMS based on HBase	NewSQL database with distributed OLTP and SQL
Primary database model	Document store Key-value store	Wide column store	Time Series DBMS	Document store Relational DBMS
DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems Trend Chart		Score 4.04 Rank #77   Overall #6   Wide column stores	Score 1.68 Rank #142   Overall #12   Time Series DBMS	Score 0.50 Rank #258   Overall #41   Document stores #120   Relational DBMS
Website	atos.net/en/convergence-creators/portfolio/standard-common-repository	azure.microsoft.com/­en-us/­services/­storage/­tables	opentsdb.net	www.sequoiadb.com
Technical documentation			opentsdb.net/­docs/­build/­html/­index.html	www.sequoiadb.com/­en/­index.php?m=Files&a=index
Developer	Atos Convergence Creators	Microsoft	currently maintained by Yahoo and other contributors	Sequoiadb Ltd.
Initial release	2016	2012	2011	2013
Current release	1703
License Commercial or Open Source	commercial	commercial	Open Source LGPL	Open Source Server: AGPL; Client: Apache V2
Cloud-based only Only available as a cloud service	no	yes	no	no
DBaaS offerings (sponsored links) Database as a Service Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.
Implementation language	Java		Java	C++
Server operating systems	Linux	hosted	Linux Windows	Linux
Data scheme	Schema and schema-less with LDAP views	schema-free	schema-free	schema-free
Typing predefined data types such as float or date	optional	yes	numeric data for metrics, strings for tags	yes oid, date, timestamp, binary, regex
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	no	no	yes
SQL Support of SQL	no	no	no	SQL-like query language
APIs and other access methods	LDAP	RESTful HTTP API	HTTP API Telnet API	proprietary protocol using JSON
Supported programming languages	All languages with LDAP bindings	.Net C# C++ Java JavaScript (Node.js) PHP Python Ruby	Erlang Go Java Python R Ruby	.Net C++ Java PHP Python
Server-side scripts Stored procedures	no	no	no	JavaScript
Triggers	yes	no	no	no
Partitioning methods Methods for storing different data on different nodes	Sharding cell division	Sharding Implicit feature of the cloud service	Sharding based on HBase	Sharding
Replication methods Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes	yes	yes implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.	selectable replication factor based on HBase	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	Immediate Consistency based on HBase	Eventual Consistency
Foreign keys Referential integrity	no	no	no	no
Transaction concepts Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data	Atomic execution of specific operations	optimistic locking	no	Document is locked during a transaction
Concurrency Support for concurrent manipulation of data	yes	yes	yes	yes
Durability Support for making data persistent	yes	yes	yes	yes
In-memory capabilities Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.	yes	no	no	no
User concepts Access control	LDAP bind authentication	Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures	no	simple password-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
	Atos Standard Common Repository	Microsoft Azure Table Storage	OpenTSDB	Sequoiadb
DB-Engines blog posts			Time Series DBMS are the database category with the fastest increase in popularity 4 July 2016, Matthias Gelbmann show all
Recent citations in the news		Working with Azure to Use and Manage Data Lakes 7 March 2024, Simplilearn How to Use C# Azure.Data.Tables SDK with Azure Cosmos DB 9 July 2021, hackernoon.com How to use Azure Table storage in .Net 14 January 2019, InfoWorld Quick Guide to Azure Storage Pricing 16 May 2023, DevOps.com How to write data to Azure Table Store with an Azure Function 14 April 2017, Experts Exchange provided by Google News	Comparing Different Time-Series Databases 10 February 2022, hackernoon.com MapR to help admins peer into dense Hadoop clusters 28 June 2016, SiliconANGLE News A real-time processing revival - O'Reilly Radar 2 April 2015, O'Reilly Radar provided by Google News

Share this page