Transaction Management for Cloud-Based Graph Databases

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9511)


Many graph databases, both open and proprietary, have been recently developed to efficiently store and manage graph structured data. As the volume of such data grows, graph databases most often offer distributed solutions implemented in a cloud infrastructure. In this paper, we focus on transaction management for such cloud-based graph databases. In particular, we use various graph databases as case studies to survey the different levels of transaction support and concurrency control protocols offered. We also study data distribution issues and replication protocols. Finally, we highlight open issues that need to be addressed in the future.


Graph database Consistency Cloud computing 



Research co-financed by the ESF and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of NSRF-Research Funding Program: Thales: Cloud9.


  1. 1.
    Apache Giraph.
  2. 2.
    Brewer, E.: Towards robust distributed systems. In: 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (Invited Talk), p. 7 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewer, E.: CAP twelve years later: how the “rules” have changed. IEEE Comput. 45(2), 23–29 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, R., Weng, X., He, B., Yang, M., Choi, B., Li, X.: Improving large graph processing on partitioned graphs in the cloud. In: 3rd ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, Article No. 3 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheng, R., Hong, J., Kyrola, A., Miao, Y., Weng, X., Wu, M., Yang, F., Zhou, L., Zhao, F., Chen, E.: Kineograph: taking the pulse of a fast-changing and connected world. In: 7th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys), pp. 85–98 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fjallstrom, P.O.: Algorithms for graph partitioning: a survey. Linkoping Electron. Art. Comput. Inf. Sci. 3(10), 1–37 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilbert, S., Lynch, N.: Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available. SIGACT News Partition-tolerant Web Serv. 33(2), 51–59 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gonzalez, J.E., Low, Y., Gu, H., Bickson, D., Guestrin, C.: Powergraph: distributed graph-parallel computation on natural graphs. In: 10th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pp. 17–30 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hendrickson, B., Leland, P.: A multilevel algorithm for partitioning graphs. In: ACM/IEEE Supercomputing Conference, Article No. 28 (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Karypis, G., Kumar, V.: Multilevel k-way hypergraph partitioning. In: 36th ACM/IEEE Conference on Design Automation, pp. 343–348 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khayyat, Z., Awara, K., Alonazi, A., Jamjoom, H., Williams, D., Kalnis, P.: Mizan: a system for dynamic load balancing in large-scale graph processing. In: 8th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys), pp. 169–182 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khurana, U., Deshpande, A.: Efficient snapshot retrieval over historical graph data. In: 29th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp. 997–1008 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koloniari, G., Pitoura, E.: Partial view selection for evolving social graphs. In: 1st International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences and Systems (GRADES), Article No. 9 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kyrola, A., Blelloch, G., Guestrin, C.: GraphChi: large-scale graph computation on just a PC. In: 10th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pp. 31–46 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lakshman, A., Malik, P.: Cassandra - a decentralized structured storage system. ACM SIGOPS Operating Syst. Rev. 44(2), 35–40 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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. PVLDB 5(8), 716–727 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malewicz, G., Austern, M.H., Bik, A.J., Denhert, J.C., Horn, I., Leiser, N., Czajkowski, G.: Pregel: a system for large-scale graph processing. In: 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 135–146 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martinez-Bazan, N., Muntés-Mulero, V., Gómez-Villamor, S., Nin, J., Sánchez-Martinez, M.A., Larriba-Pey, J.L.: DEX: high-performance exploration on large graphs for information retrieval. In: 16th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (SIGMOD), pp. 573–582 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mondal, J., Deshpande, A.: Managing large dynamic graphs efficiently. In: 2012 ACM SIGMOD Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 145–156 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Pritchett, D.: Base: an acid alternative. ACM Queue 6(3), 48–55 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pujol, J.M., Erramilli, V., Siganos, G., Yang, X., Laoutaris, N., Chhabra, P., Rodriguez, P.: The little engine(s) that could: scaling online social networks. In: ACM SIGCOMM 2010 Conference, pp. 375–386 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robinson, I., Webber, J., Eifrem, E.: Graph Databases. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Semertzidis, K., Pitoura, E., Lillis, K.: TimeReach: historical reachability queries on evolving graphs. In: 18th International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT), pp. 121–132 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shang, Z., Yu, J.X.: Catch the wind: graph workload balancing on cloud. In: 29th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp. 553–564 (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shao, B., Wang, H., Li, Y.: Trinity: a distributed graph engine on a memory cloud. In: 2013 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 505–516 (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Stanton, I., Kliot, G.: Streaming graph partitioning for large distributed graphs. In: 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1222–1230 (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    TPC Benchmark.
  33. 33.
    Verbelen, T., Stevens, T., De Turck, F., Dhoedt, B.: Graph partitioning algorithms for optimizing software deployment in mobile cloud computing. J. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 29(2), 451–459 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vogels, W.: Eventually consistent. Commun. ACM 52(1), 40–44 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang, L., Xiao, Y., Shao, B., Wang, H.: How to partition a billion-node graph. In: IEEE 30th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp. 568–579 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied Informatics DepartmentUniversity of MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of IoanninaIoanninaGreece

Personalised recommendations