[junon]

Oh, then I'm not sure what you mean. That line makes sense - the final benchmarks were performed on the author's machine. That's where the conclusion comes from.

In theory, the spread between two benchmarked programs is not going to be hugely different between machines unless one is taking advantage of the hardware of one of the machines where the other doesn't (e.g. new syscall mechanisms such as io_uring, SIMD support, multithreading in some cases, etc).

2-3x is a much more reasonable spread than 100x. If they really did have 100x speedups, then the culprit may be the fact they're using obscenely old hardware, which would be disingenuous given that people are not typically running graph databases on such infrastructure anymore.

[roetlich]

> the final benchmarks were performed on the author's machine

No, the author didn't run any benchmarks for Memgraph AFAICT, only for Neo4j. The numbers for mempgraph at the end are from the old benchmark, so on the old hardware.

[junon]

I don't think that's right. That's not how I understood the article.

[aeyes]

The author published the code and I only see adapters which interface with Neo4J: https://github.com/maxdemarzi/memgraph_benchmark/tree/main/s...

The numbers for Memgraph match what is shown on their benchmark website.

[mhio]

The author confirmed only neo4j tests in a follow up comment.