Abstract
Graphs are widely used to model the intricate relationships among objects in a wide range of applications. The advance in graph data has brought significant value to artificial intelligence technologies. Recently, a number of graph database systems have been developed. In this paper, we present a comprehensive overview and empirical investigation on existing property graph database systems such as Neo4j, AgensGraph, TigerGraph and LightGraph (LightGraph has recently renamed to TuGraph.). These systems support declarative graph query languages. Our empirical studies are conducted in a single-machine environment against on the LDBC social network benchmark, consisting of three different large-scale datasets and a set of benchmark queries. This is the first empirical study to compare these graph database systems by evaluating data bulk importing and processing simple and complex queries. Experimental results provide insightful observations of various graph data systems and indicate that AgensGraph works well on SQL based workload and simple update queries, TigerGraph is powerful on complex business intelligence queries, Neo4j is user-friendly and suitable for small queries, and LightGraph is a more balanced product achieving good performance on different queries. The related code, scripts and data of this paper are available online (https://github.com/UNSW-database/GraphDB-Benchmark).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Gremlin has limited degree of declarative support.
References
Agensgraph. https://bitnine.net/
Apache giraph. http://giraph.apache.org
Arangodb. https://www.arangodb.com/
Janusgraph. https://janusgraph.org/
Lightgraph. https://fma-ai.cn/
Nebula. https://nebula-graph.io/cn/
Neo4j. https://neo4j.com/
Ranking of graph dbms. https://db-engines.com/en/ranking/graph+dbms
Tigergraph. https://www.tigergraph.com/
Abdelaziz, I., Harbi, R., Khayyat, Z., Kalnis, P.: A survey and experimental comparison of distributed sparql engines for very large RDF data. Proc. VLDB Endow. 10(13), 2049–2060 (2017)
Akoglu, L., Tong, H., Koutra, D.: Graph based anomaly detection and description: a survey. Data Min. Knowl. Disc. 29(3), 626–688 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618-014-0365-y
Besta, M., et al.: Demystifying graph databases: analysis and taxonomy of data organization, system designs, and graph queries. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09017 (2019)
Ding, P., Cheng, Y., Lu, W., Huang, H., Du, X.: Which category is better: benchmarking the RDBMSs and GDBMSs. In: Shao, J., Yiu, M.L., Toyoda, M., Zhang, D., Wang, W., Cui, B. (eds.) APWeb-WAIM 2019. LNCS, vol. 11642, pp. 207–215. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26075-0_16
Erling, O., et al.: The LDBC social network benchmark: interactive workload. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD, pp. 619–630 (2015)
Gonzalez, J.E., Xin, R.S., Dave, A., Crankshaw, D., Franklin, M.J., Stoica, I.: Graphx: graph processing in a distributed dataflow framework. In: Proceedings of OSDI 2014, pp. 599–613 (2014)
Hao, K., Yang, Z., Lai, L., Lai, Z., Jin, X., Lin, X.: PatMat: a distributed pattern matching engine with cypher. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 2921–2924 (2019)
Kankanamge, C., Sahu, S., Mhedbhi, A., Chen, J., Salihoglu, S.: Graphflow: an active graph database. In: Proceedings of SIGMOD 2017, pp. 1695–1698 (2017)
Kolomičenko, V., Svoboda, M., Mlỳnková, I.H.: Experimental comparison of graph databases. In: Proceedings of 2013 iiWAS, pp. 115–124 (2013)
LDBC SNB task force: The LDBC social network benchmark. Technical report, LDBC (2019). https://ldbc.github.io/ldbc_snb_docs/ldbc-snb-specification.pdf
Lissandrini, M., Brugnara, M., Velegrakis, Y.: Beyond macrobenchmarks: microbenchmark-based graph database evaluation. Proc. VLDB Endow. 12(4), 390–403 (2018)
Low, Y., Bickson, D., Gonzalez, J., Guestrin, C., Kyrola, A., Hellerstein, J.M.: Distributed GraphLab: a framework for machine learning and data mining in the cloud. Proc. VLDB Endow. 5(8), 716–727 (2012)
Meza, D.: How NASA finds critical data through a knowledge graph. https://neo4j.com/blog/nasa-critical-data-knowledge-graph/
Rusu, F., Huang, Z.: In-depth benchmarking of graph database systems with the linked data benchmark council (LDBC) social network benchmark (SNB). arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.07405 (2019)
Sahu, S., Mhedhbi, A., Salihoglu, S., Lin, J., Özsu, M.T.: The ubiquity of large graphs and surprising challenges of graph processing. Proc. VLDB Endow. 11(4), 420–431 (2017)
Szárnyas, G., et al.: An early look at the LDBC social network benchmark’s business intelligence workload. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGMOD Joint Workshop on GRADES-NDA, pp. 1–11 (2018)
Wang, X., Wang, D., Xu, C., He, X., Cao, Y., Chua, T.S.: Explainable reasoning over knowledge graphs for recommendation. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, pp. 5329–5336 (2019)
Acknowledgments
Xuemin Lin is supported by 2019B1515120048, 2018AAA-0102502 and 2018YFB1003504.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wang, R., Yang, Z., Zhang, W., Lin, X. (2020). An Empirical Study on Recent Graph Database Systems. In: Li, G., Shen, H., Yuan, Y., Wang, X., Liu, H., Zhao, X. (eds) Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management. KSEM 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12274. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55130-8_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55130-8_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55129-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55130-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)