Always sad at wasted effort but something here feels odd to me. Use graph technologies if you genuinely have a graph problem; use graph technologies if you have

Always sad at wasted effort but something here feels odd to me. Use graph technologies if you genuinely have a graph problem; use graph technologies if you have an "almost tree but..." problem; don't use graph technologies if you have a strict tree problem or a table problem. This all feels like a meta- version of "social pressure pushed me to use the wrong conceptual model". All the cool kids were doing it... That said, graphs are dangerous because they are so flexible; you can draw a tree or a table in one and it all seems fine but you're paying all the time in conceptual load and friction. Microcosm: graph vs table db. In the middle: social pressure dominating data model choices. Macrocosm (relatively speaking): The swing of the pendulum between bodgy vernacular attempts to describe the world (dev don't need some control freak's schema) and esoteric priesthood attempts to describe the world (all knowledge graph structural changes must be initiated by our ontologist...).