NoSQL Benchmark Compares PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: NoSQL Benchmark Compares PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB
#2Looking around, it seems that different graph engines pull ahead depending on the use case.
http://www.slideshare.net/sympapadopoulos/adbis2014-presenta...
Re: NoSQL Benchmark Compares PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB
#3I really, really distrust these kinds of evaluations when they come from someone whose product is included in the comparison. Even if everything is above-board, they're not going to publish if it shows their product just completely sucks at it. That kind of publication bias makes these kinds of results a lot less trustworthy than independent benchmarks even if you assume the best of intentions from the people putting them out there.
Re: NoSQL Benchmark Compares PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB
#4and now a 10-node cluster
Re: NoSQL Benchmark Compares PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB
#5Hugged to death.
Re: NoSQL Benchmark Compares PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB
#6>Error establishing a database connection
Re: NoSQL Benchmark Compares PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB
#7I really, really distrust these kinds of evaluations when they come from someone whose product is included in the comparison. Even if everything is above-board, they're not going to publish if it shows their product just completely sucks at it. That kind of publication bias makes these kinds of results a lot less trustworthy than independent benchmarks even if you assume the best of intentions from the people putting…
The particular benchmark seems bullshit, too. For postgres they seem to intentionally use the less performant json column type instead of jsonb.
Not that I can verify it, because the code in the linked public "No magic, no tricks – check the code and make your own tests!" repository doesn't match the published results and doesn't even work at all with postgres…
EDIT: Okay, they pushed a new version containing the Postgres data now. They ARE using the cripplingly slow json columns, not jsonb columns recommended by the documentation.
Re: NoSQL Benchmark Compares PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB
#8I really, really distrust these kinds of evaluations when they come from someone whose product is included in the comparison. Even if everything is above-board, they're not going to publish if it shows their product just completely sucks at it. That kind of publication bias makes these kinds of results a lot less trustworthy than independent benchmarks even if you assume the best of intentions from the people putting…
[deleted]
Re: NoSQL Benchmark Compares PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB
#9I really, really distrust these kinds of evaluations when they come from someone whose product is included in the comparison. Even if everything is above-board, they're not going to publish if it shows their product just completely sucks at it. That kind of publication bias makes these kinds of results a lot less trustworthy than independent benchmarks even if you assume the best of intentions from the people putting…
The particular benchmark seems bullshit, too. For postgres they seem to intentionally use the less performant json column type instead of jsonb. Not that I can verify it, because the code in the linked public "No magic, no tricks – check the code and make your own tests!" repository doesn't match the published results and doesn't even work at all with postgres… EDIT: Okay, they pushed a new version containing the Pos…
Just to be a pedant, the JSONB format as I understand is marginally slower at inserts and orders of magnitude faster at everything else...
Re: NoSQL Benchmark Compares PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB
#10I really, really distrust these kinds of evaluations when they come from someone whose product is included in the comparison. Even if everything is above-board, they're not going to publish if it shows their product just completely sucks at it. That kind of publication bias makes these kinds of results a lot less trustworthy than independent benchmarks even if you assume the best of intentions from the people putting…
The particular benchmark seems bullshit, too. For postgres they seem to intentionally use the less performant json column type instead of jsonb. Not that I can verify it, because the code in the linked public "No magic, no tricks – check the code and make your own tests!" repository doesn't match the published results and doesn't even work at all with postgres… EDIT: Okay, they pushed a new version containing the Pos…
And despite that Postgres destroys all the other solutions at everything other than the non-sync (lol) single write case and graph traversal.
If anything it just proves even after almost a decade of these "NoSQL" solutions being around they still can't compete even on basic queries with Postgres which is a fairly conservative SQL solution.