DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. RDFox vs. SWC-DB vs. Valentina Server

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. RDFox vs. SWC-DB vs. Valentina Server

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

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

High performance knowledge graph and semantic reasoning engine

A high performance, scalable Wide Column DBMS

Object-relational database and reports server

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

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

Score	829.80
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	0.24
Rank	#309	Overall
	#25	Graph DBMS
	#14	RDF stores

Score	0.01
Rank	#387	Overall
	#13	Wide column stores

Score	0.18
Rank	#329	Overall
	#144	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

www.oxfordsemantic.tech

github.com/kashirin-alex/swc-db
www.swcdb.org

www.valentina-db.net

Technical documentation

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

docs.oxfordsemantic.tech

valentina-db.com/docs/dokuwiki/v5/doku.php

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Microsoft

Oxford Semantic Technologies

Alex Kashirin

Paradigma Software

Initial release

2016

1989

2017

2020

1999

Current release

1703

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

6.0, Septermber 2022

0.5, April 2021

5.7.5

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

restricted free version is available

commercial

Open Source

GPL V3

commercial

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

C++

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
Windows

Linux
macOS
Windows

Linux

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

RDF schemas

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

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL 1.1

Proprietary protocol
Thrift

ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

C
Java

C++

.Net
C
C#
C++
Objective-C
PHP
Ruby
Visual Basic
Visual Basic.NET

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

replication via a shared file system

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

Immediate Consistency in stand-alone mode, Eventual Consistency in replicated setups

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

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Roles, resources, and access types

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.