2 ms·
Umbra and cedar are both still relational databases. Afaik the jury is now out on if graph databases are better than modern relational databases for most graph
by Tanjreeve 2y ago
Umbra and cedar are both still relational databases. Afaik the jury is now out on if graph databases are better than modern relational databases for most graph queries especially ones with good query planners/compilers. The only time graph DBs seem to be consistently better is for very specialist many degrees traversals for small amounts of data.
- wslh 2y agoMy point is that both Umbra and Cedar mentioned graph support, and I don't believe this was a coincidence. Umbra highlights: "Groupjoins enable efficient computation of aggregates, worst-case optimal joins handle complex queries on graph structured data, and range joins efficiently evaluate queries with conditions on location or time intervals." while Cedar includes in the hero: "CedarDB is a relational-first database system that delivers best-in-class performance for all your workloads, from transactional to analytical to graph,..."
- Tanjreeve 2y agoI think that phrase of "relational first" explains it best. Anything that supports joins can support a graph. Whether it'll perform satisfactorily is going to depend on the compiler and use case/size.