3 ms·
I can see how this possibly won't scale compared to dedicated graph dbs. I'm interested in what the fundamental difference is in those graph dbs because rdbms
by bottlepalm 4y ago
I can see how this possibly won't scale compared to dedicated graph dbs.
I'm interested in what the fundamental difference is in those graph dbs because rdbms seem so close I don't see why it isn't just provided as an extra layer on top.
As described in the article, any graph can already be built with an rbms, so why for example does neo4j need to be standalone and can't possibly be a layer on top of postgres to leverage existing relationships? Any good articles on that?
- emodendroket 4y agoI don't know off the top of my head but I'd assume that one could adjust the storage strategy and other performance tweaking to optimize for the expected use case.
- cbeach 4y agoSee the following page for an explanation (in particular the "Native Graph Processing" heading) https://neo4j.com/blog/native-vs-non-native-graph-technology/ https://neo4j.com/blog/native-vs-non-native-graph-technology... In native graph databases like Neo4J query times are proportional to the amount of the graph searched, rather than increasing with the overall size of the data. That's the clincher.