Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bullshit graph database performance benchmarks

maxdemarzi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 118 posts

Re: Bullshit graph database performance benchmarks

#21

Post by junon »

mhio wrote: post #13

I get that this is trying to point out that neo4j shouldn't be that far behind, but why are the i7/gatling test numbers being directly compared to memgraphs g6 test results? The conclusion is a bit premature without the other half of the test... What performance does memgraph have on the newer, single socket hardware?

Yeah that was strange, it's my understanding that you can't compare benchmarks between different machines, especially if they're not 1:1 identical hardware.

If you're referring to this line, then it struct me as very odd.

> Instead of 112 queries per second, I get 531q/s. Instead of a p99 latency of 94.49ms, I get 28ms with a min, mean, p50, p75 and p95 of 14ms to 18ms. Alright, what about query 2? Same story.

Otherwise, the article holds up.

Re: Bullshit graph database performance benchmarks

#22

Post by randomdata »

jiggawatts wrote: post #14
LAC-Tech wrote: post #11

What are people using graph databases for, and what do your queries look like? I've read about them briefly but I have to admit my imagination fails me as to how it would look in the real world.

In a word: Facebook. A more technical use case that I liked was a system that can analyse the configuration of resources across and entire network and find a "path" from a normal user account to a full admin privilege. Something like: "Helpdesk user A can reset the password of a service account that can write to a file share that contains a script that is run on logon by every user including the full admin, allowing…

> In a word: Facebook.

Which, funnily enough, uses a relational database.

Re: Bullshit graph database performance benchmarks

#24

Post by sum1ren »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #8

On a tangent, what Graph Database would people recommend in 2023? In particular, I would like something that's linked in like SQLite rather than a full blown service like MySQL etc

I've been using auradb, not exactly SQLite-like but good way for me to get started for free.

Re: Bullshit graph database performance benchmarks

#25

Post by bryanrasmussen »

randomdata wrote: post #22
jiggawatts wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a word: Facebook. A more technical use case that I liked was a system that can analyse the configuration of resources across and entire network and find a "path" from a normal user account to a full admin privilege. Something like: "Helpdesk user A can reset the password of a service account that can write to a file share that contains a script that is run on logon by every user including the full admin, allowing…

> In a word: Facebook. Which, funnily enough, uses a relational database.

I'm betting Facebook uses a lot of different types of databases.

Re: Bullshit graph database performance benchmarks

#26

Post by randomdata »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #25
randomdata wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a word: Facebook. Which, funnily enough, uses a relational database.

I'm betting Facebook uses a lot of different types of databases.

No doubt, but the core product known for being graph-y is based on MySQL.

Indeed, there is a graph data store (TAO) built on top of that base, but as we're talking about databases...

Re: Bullshit graph database performance benchmarks

#27

Post by alias_neo »

dwroberts wrote: post #23

The author works on RageDB ( https://ragedb.com/ ) and this doesn't seem to be disclosed in the article

I'm not sure why it would need to be "disclosed", other than to suggest the author knows what they're talking about due to "domain knowledge".

Re: Bullshit graph database performance benchmarks

#28

Post by th3sly »

mastermedo wrote: post #19

I wouldn’t say the benchmarks put out by graph databases are bullshit. But there is a need for a standardisation of how they’re produced. The main problem is that when you’re comparing two products you’re bound to be comparing apples to oranges. Every product solves a slightly or majorly different challenge. So when you run n tests on two different products some tests are bound to perform better on one product and so…

it even has a name: benchmarketing :D

Re: Bullshit graph database performance benchmarks

#29

Post by chaps »

alias_neo wrote: post #27
dwroberts wrote: post #23

The author works on RageDB ( https://ragedb.com/ ) and this doesn't seem to be disclosed in the article

I'm not sure why it would need to be "disclosed", other than to suggest the author knows what they're talking about due to "domain knowledge".

It's because he has reason to destroy other competitors. Nice read otherwise.
Post reply on HN