DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. TigerGraph vs. Vitess

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. TigerGraph vs. Vitess

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

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

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

Scalable, distributed, cloud-native DBMS, extending MySQL

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	1.83
Rank	#139	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Score	0.82
Rank	#209	Overall
	#97	Relational DBMS

Website

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

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

www.tigergraph.com

vitess.io

Technical documentation

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

docs.tigergraph.com

vitess.io/docs

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Microsoft

The Linux Foundation, PlanetScale

Initial release

2016

1989

2017

2013

Current release

1703

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

15.0.2, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

restricted free version is available

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0, commercial licenses available

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

Docker
Linux
macOS

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

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 (GSQL)

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

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

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

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
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

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

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

yes

proprietary syntax

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

Multi-source replication
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

Eventual Consistency across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

ACID at shard level

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

Role-based access control

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.