4 ms·
Looks rather complex. Based on hypergraphs which are generalizations of graphs, and are difficult to draw on paper. Haskell of databases?
by hassy 17y ago
Looks rather complex. Based on hypergraphs which are generalizations of graphs, and are difficult to draw on paper. Haskell of databases?
- emileifrem 17y agoI haven't looked deeply into this particular project but I agree with you: the hypergraph data model seems to add too much complexity for too little bang compared to a generic graph model. The Neo4j graph database: http://neo4j.org http://neo4j.org is based on generic property graphs. We sometimes get requests for hypergraph features, but we've found that the real-world problems are always solvable through a normal graph. Either way, it's very nice to see more open source graph databases out there! -EE
- wheels 17y agoMy take was similar. It seems to focus too much on flexibility in storage, whether objects or graph elements, to the detriment of clarity in its API. The one bit that piqued my interest is that it claims to be a distributed database, so looking at its mechanism for such will be interesting.
- borislav 17y agoA classical hypergraph can be easily drawn as a bipartite graph (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartite_graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartite_graph). HyperGraphDB goes to an extra dimension (with higher order links) and that's hard to visualise if you want to see connections b/w different abstraction levels. Otherwise, once you get past the slightly unfamiliar concepts, HyperGraphDB would make working with complicated models much simpler.