DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. RethinkDB vs. Transwarp KunDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. RethinkDB vs. Transwarp KunDB

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

DBMS for the Web with a mechanism to push updated query results to applications in realtime.

OLTP DBMS based on a distributed architecture and highly compatible with MySQL and Oracle

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Document store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

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

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

Score	2.74
Rank	#105	Overall
	#19	Document stores

Score	0.10
Rank	#344	Overall
	#151	Relational DBMS

Website

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

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

rethinkdb.com

www.transwarp.cn/en/product/kundb

Technical documentation

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

rethinkdb.com/docs

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

The Linux Foundation

since July 2017

Transwarp

Initial release

2016

2009

Current release

1703

3.4, August 2019

2.4.1, August 2020

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

Apache Version 2

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

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

string, binary, float, bool, date, geometry

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

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

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

community-supported driver
C#

community-supported driver
C++

community-supported driver
Clojure

community-supported driver
Dart

community-supported driver
Erlang

community-supported driver
Go

community-supported driver
Haskell

community-supported driver
Java

official driver
JavaScript (Node.js)

official driver
Lisp

community-supported driver
Lua

community-supported driver
Objective-C

community-supported driver
Perl

community-supported driver
PHP

community-supported driver
Python

official driver
Ruby

official driver
Scala

community-supported driver

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

yes, watching key changes

Client-side triggers through changefeeds

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

range based

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.

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

Atomic single-document operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

MVCC based

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

yes

users and table-level permissions

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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

DB-Engines blog posts

Meet some database management systems you are likely to hear more about in the future
4 August 2014, Paul Andlinger

show all

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

Apache APISIX Without etcd?
27 July 2023, hackernoon.com

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

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

ETCD directives don't go well with RBI's stellar reputation
14 April 2024, Business Standard

provided by Google News

An introduction to building realtime apps with RethinkDB
9 July 2022, devmio

How to Use RethinkDB with Node.js Applications — SitePoint
16 December 2015, SitePoint

Stripe acquires team behind NoSQL database startup RethinkDB
5 October 2016, VentureBeat

MongoDB: The Popular Database for IoT
15 August 2023, Open Source For You

RethinkDB is dead, and MongoDB isn't what killed it
24 January 2017, TechRepublic

provided by Google News

Share this page