Advertisement

An Empirical Study on Recent Graph Database Systems

  • Ran WangEmail author
  • Zhengyi Yang
  • Wenjie Zhang
  • Xuemin Lin
Conference paper
  • 285 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12274)

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).

Keywords

Graph database systems Labeled property graph LDBC benchmark 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Xuemin Lin is supported by 2019B1515120048, 2018AAA-0102502 and 2018YFB1003504.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Lightgraph. https://fma-ai.cn/
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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-yMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Besta, M., et al.: Demystifying graph databases: analysis and taxonomy of data organization, system designs, and graph queries. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09017 (2019)
  14. 14.
    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_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Erling, O., et al.: The LDBC social network benchmark: interactive workload. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD, pp. 619–630 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kankanamge, C., Sahu, S., Mhedbhi, A., Chen, J., Salihoglu, S.: Graphflow: an active graph database. In: Proceedings of SIGMOD 2017, pp. 1695–1698 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kolomičenko, V., Svoboda, M., Mlỳnková, I.H.: Experimental comparison of graph databases. In: Proceedings of 2013 iiWAS, pp. 115–124 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    LDBC SNB task force: The LDBC social network benchmark. Technical report, LDBC (2019). https://ldbc.github.io/ldbc_snb_docs/ldbc-snb-specification.pdf
  21. 21.
    Lissandrini, M., Brugnara, M., Velegrakis, Y.: Beyond macrobenchmarks: microbenchmark-based graph database evaluation. Proc. VLDB Endow. 12(4), 390–403 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meza, D.: How NASA finds critical data through a knowledge graph. https://neo4j.com/blog/nasa-critical-data-knowledge-graph/
  24. 24.
    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)
  25. 25.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    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)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ran Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zhengyi Yang
    • 2
  • Wenjie Zhang
    • 2
  • Xuemin Lin
    • 2
  1. 1.East China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.The University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations