|
|
|
|
|
by jandrewrogers
1722 days ago
|
|
More transparency and public debate about the weaknesses and limitations of graph databases is helpful regardless of the source, as there is a tendency to paper over the realities in the marketing materials. The same lens could be pointed at TigerGraph or any other graph database. All current graph databases, open or closed source, have serious deficiencies at scale. Different implementations hide these problems in different places but they all have them, and they manifest early and often. Selecting a graph database is an exercise in deciding which deficiencies you are willing to live with. We could probably do a lot better but it has always been a bit too niche to attract the right people. (There are hardcore DS&A and database theory problems central to making graph databases work well that are largely ignored in conventional database engine designs, but most graph databases tend to be designed by people that love graphs rather than people with deep expertise in those computer science problems. Would be an interesting problem to work on.) EDIT: I find the article to be a very reasonable and thorough explanation of why the benchmark is at best misleading and at worst deceptive. |
|