Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by robertlagrant 1254 days ago
Author is just stating the differences between the benchmarketing hardware and his own. Not comparing new hardware and one DB with old hardware and other DB.
3 comments

The bottom table contains the memgraph mgBench (G6 2x Xeon X5650) "hot run, medium, isolated" throughput results:

https://memgraph.com/benchgraph/base?condition=hot&datasetSi...

The "By" columns compares those results to the new test suite on the ~10y newer cpu.

But those are needless comparisons that make no sense to even mention. Of course the performance profile is different. That was the original point, if I understand correctly.

EDIT: GP followed up, I did not in fact understand correctly.

Seems like he does in his conclusion:

> It looks like Neo4j is faster than Memgraph in the Aggregate queries by about 3 times.

Having re-read it, I now can't decide. It would be a little silly if the author is completely different devices, so I'm going to stick to that interpretation.