DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. RavenDB vs. RocksDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. RavenDB vs. RocksDB

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

A distributed reliable key-value store

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Embeddable persistent key-value store optimized for fast storage (flash and RAM)

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Document store

Key-value store

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

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

Score	2.92
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Score	3.65
Rank	#85	Overall
	#11	Key-value stores

Website

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

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

ravendb.net

rocksdb.org

Technical documentation

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

ravendb.net/docs

github.com/facebook/rocksdb/wiki

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Hibernating Rhinos

Facebook, Inc.

Initial release

2016

2010

2013

Current release

1703

3.4, August 2019

5.4, July 2022

8.11.4, April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

Open Source

BSD

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

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

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

SQL-like query language (RQL)

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

C++ API
Java API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

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

C
C++
Go
Java
Perl
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

yes, watching key changes

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

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.

Multi-source replication

yes

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

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

yes

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

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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.