[don71]

Hi,

I'm Claudius, the author of the blog post. The intent of the blog was not to show, that a particular product is not performing well. There are thousands of different use cases and each database has its strengths and weaknesses. For a different scenario the results might be different. Neo4J is a solid product and is doing a good job. The aim of the blog was to show, that multi-model can compete with specialized solutions. What I wanted to show, is that a multi-model approach per se does not carry a performance penalty.

[NathanKP]

> Neo4j is a solid product and is doing a good job.

My personal opinion, based on my experiences using Neo4j, is that Neo4j is not a solid product. (At least not by my definition of "solid".) I think it has good marketing but falls apart in a lot of real world use cases.

I understand that the point of the blog post wasn't to bash Neo4j, but it does demonstrate quite well the fact that a multi model approach can be quite competitive or even better in terms of performance for many use cases.

Given Neo4j's historical and ongoing issues, if the multi model DB solution also happens to be a more mature and stable one then there is no front on which Neo4j wins.

[rspeer]

> Neo4J is a solid product

Do you really believe this, in your expert opinion, or are you just trying not to step on toes?

[don71]

We are a multi-model database, which is not in a strict sense a competitor but is competing with Neo4J in some areas. Therefore I'm definitely not a Neo4J expert. However, I'm now working in the field for over 15 years, developing in-memory solutions, databases and application servers. Developing ArangoDB for almost three years and I have talked to a lot of people in that area and to people who are using Neo4J. There are always obstacle when moving to new products. But most of the people who I met are quite happy with Neo4J.