3 ms·

I wonder how performant this is, since I see no mention of benchmarks and such. I'm currently using MongoDB to store a graph, and it's not that bad to use, exc

by ehsanul 17y ago

I wonder how performant this is, since I see no mention of benchmarks and such. I'm currently using MongoDB to store a graph, and it's not that bad to use, except that pagination of a node's edges is unwieldy, atleast the way I have it set up. But I don't see how to do it smoothly in HyperGraphDB either. I don't see a way to sort by edge weight within a query, and limit results to say the top 10, or skip them. So I'd have to load up all the edges to a node, and sort/limit/skip them myself?

borislav 17y ago
Benchmarks are a good idea and we'll certainly post some numbers in the near feature. I've searched for some good standardized data sets and queries/algos for graph databases, but found none, so if somebody here has a pointer, I'll be much appreciated! We haven't added pagination, sorting and the likes yet, because we thought they are more of a priority for a server-oriented database. And HyperGraphDB has been exclusively used as an embedded database where large portions of the graph are kept in main memory and such things are done by application code. But I agree it's a valid and common use case and we'll try to add those sooner rather than later. In the meantime, if you want write to the discussion forum with more info about your problem and I'll be happy to help.