A Selection Process of Graph Databases Based on Business Requirements

  • Víctor OrtegaEmail author
  • Leobardo Ruiz
  • Luis Gutierrez
  • Francisco Cervantes
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1071)


Several graph databases provide support to analyze a large amount of highly connected data, and it is not trivial for a company to choose the right one. We propose a new process that allows analysts to select the database that suits best to the business requirements. The proposed selection process makes possible to benchmark several graph databases according to the user needs by considering metrics such as querying capabilities, built-in functions, performance analysis, and user experience. We have selected some of the most popular native graph database engines to test our approach to solve a given problem. Our proposed selection process has been useful to design benchmarks and provides valuable information to decide which graph database to choose. The presented approach can be easily applied to a wide number of applications such as social network, market basket analysis, fraud detection, and others.


Graph databases Benchmarking Selection process 


  1. 1.
    Lourenço, J.R., Cabral, B., Carreiro, P., Vieira, M., Bernardino, J.: Choosing the right NoSQL database for the job: a quality attribute evaluation. J. Big Data 2(1), 18 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baharu, A., Sharma, D.P.: Performance metrics for decision support in big data vs. traditional RDBMS tools & technologies (IJACSA). Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 7(11), 222–228 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cattell, R.: Scalable SQL and NoSQL data stores. SIGMOD Rec. 39(4), 12–27 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Han, J., Haihong, E., Le, G., Du, J.: Survey on NoSQL database. In: 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Applications, pp. 363–366. IEEE, Beijing, China (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Junghanns, M., Petermann, A., Neumann, M., Rahm, E.: Management and analysis of big graph data: current systems and open challenges. In: Handbook of Big Data Technologies. Springer, Sydney (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guia, J., Soares, V., Bernardino, J.: Graph databases: Neo4j analysis. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pp. 351–356 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hayes, J., Gutierrez, C.: Bipartite graphs as intermediate model for RDF. In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 47–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Angeles, R., Gutierrez, C.: Querying RDF data from a graph database perspective. In: European Semantic Web Conference, pp. 346–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vicknair, C., Macias, M., Zhao, Z., Nan, X., Chen, Y., Wilkins, D.A.: Comparison of a graph database and a relational database: a data provenance perspective. In: Proceedings of the 48th annual Southeast regional conference, p. 42. ACM, Mississippi (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Batra, S., Tyagi, C.: Comparative analysis of relational and graph databases. Int. J. Soft Comput. Eng. 2, 509–512 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nayak, A., Poriya, A., Poojary, D.: Type of NoSQL databases and its comparison with relational databases. Int. J. Appl. Inf. Syst. 5, 16–19 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernandes, D., Bernardino, J.: Graph databases comparison: AllegroGraph, ArangoDB, InfiniteGraph, Neo4 J, and OrientDB. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Data Science, Technology and Applications, pp. 373–380, Porto, Portugal (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neo4j vs. Dgraph – The Numbers Speak for Themselves.
  14. 14.
    Benchmarking Graph Analytic Systems: TigerGraph, Neo4j, Neptune, JanusGraph, and ArangoDB.
  15. 15.
    Maxville, V., Armarego, J., Lam, C.P.: Applying a reusable framework for software selection. IET Softw. 3(5), 369–380 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, Y.-C., Tang, N.-H., Sugumaran, V.: Open source CRM software selection using the analytic hierarchy process. Inf. Syst. Manag. 31(1), 2–20 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Víctor Ortega
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leobardo Ruiz
    • 1
  • Luis Gutierrez
    • 1
  • Francisco Cervantes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electronics, Systems and Information TechnologyITESO Jesuit University of GuadalajaraTlaquepaqueMexico

Personalised recommendations