DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. SQLite vs. TinkerGraph vs. Transbase vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. SQLite vs. TinkerGraph vs. Transbase vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#345	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Score	0.17
Rank	#334	Overall
	#148	Relational DBMS

Website

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

www.sqlite.org

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Transaction Software GmbH

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2016

2000

2009

1987

2009

Current release

1703

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

free development license

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 and C++

Server operating systems

Linux

server-less

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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-92 is not fully supported

yes

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

TinkerPop 3

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

Groovy
Java

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Source-replica replication

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

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

yes

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional

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

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.