DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. RavenDB vs. Snowflake vs. SpaceTime

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. RavenDB vs. Snowflake vs. SpaceTime

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

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Cloud-based data warehousing service for structured and semi-structured data

SpaceTime is a spatio-temporal DBMS with a focus on performance.

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Relational DBMS

Spatial DBMS

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	2.84
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Score	0.03
Rank	#392	Overall
	#8	Spatial DBMS

Website

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

ravendb.net

www.snowflake.com

www.mireo.com/spacetime

Technical documentation

ravendb.net/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Hibernating Rhinos

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Mireo

Initial release

2016

2010

2014

2020

Current release

1703

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

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
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

hosted

Linux

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

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

SQL-like query language (RQL)

yes

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

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

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C#
C++
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

Fixed-grid hypercubes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication

yes

Real-time block device replication (DRBD)

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

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.

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, Cluster-wide transaction available

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

Authorization levels configured per client per database

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable authentication

yes

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.