DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. chDB vs. etcd vs. OrigoDB vs. SiteWhere

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. chDB vs. etcd vs. OrigoDB vs. SiteWhere

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

An embedded SQL OLAP Engine powered by ClickHouse

A distributed reliable key-value store

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

M2M integration platform for persisting/querying time series data

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Secondary database models

Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#158	Relational DBMS

Score	7.25
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

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

Score	0.06
Rank	#356	Overall
	#35	Time Series DBMS

Website

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

github.com/chdb-io/chdb

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

origodb.com

github.com/sitewhere/sitewhere

Technical documentation

doc.chdb.io

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

origodb.com/docs

sitewhere1.sitewhere.io/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Robert Friberg et al

SiteWhere

Initial release

2016

2023

2009

under the name LiveDB

2010

Current release

1703

3.4, August 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0

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

Server operating systems

Linux

server-less

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Linux
Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

predefined scheme

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

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

Close to ANSI SQL (SQL/JSON + extensions)

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

HTTP REST

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Bun
C
C++
Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Rust

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

yes, watching key changes

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

Sharding

based on HBase

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

Source-replica replication

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

depending on model

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

Role based authorization

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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

Recent citations in the news

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

provided by Google News

Monitor Amazon EKS Control Plane metrics using AWS Open Source monitoring services | Amazon Web Services
12 October 2023, AWS Blog

RBI reiterates need for underlying forex exposure for rupee derivatives transactions | Mint
5 April 2024, Mint

6 Cool Kubernetes Operators and How to Use Them
22 January 2024, hackernoon.com

Killing a market, softly: How an RBI communique could end India's thriving ETCD market
7 April 2024, The Economic Times

Public preview: AKS cluster control plane metrics in managed Prometheus | Azure updates
12 February 2024, azure.microsoft.com

provided by Google News

SiteWhere: An open platform for connected devices
11 July 2017, Open Source For You

Ten Popular IoT Platforms You Should be Aware of
27 March 2023, Open Source For You

11 Best Open source IoT Platforms To Develop Smart Projects
9 March 2023, H2S Media

provided by Google News

Share this page