Depth | Execution Time – MySQL | Execution Time –Neo4j |
2 | 0.016 | 0.010 |
3 | 30.267 | 0.168 |
4 | 1,543.505 | 1.359 |
5 | Not Finished in 1 Hour | 2.132 |
Keywords:
[…] 4 levels, that’s faster than the Neo4j times given at https://neo4j.com/news/how-much-faster-is-a-graph-database-really/ . For 5 levels, it’s slower, but nothing like the “not finished in an hour” listed. In […]
Obviously there are theoretical data in the post according remark “In theory, a graph database should be much faster than a relational databases in graph traversal”. On practics results are opposite. Oracle find 5,6,10,…25 deep friends for second and minutes, Neo4j has died after 6 step. Details here: http://homme.io/41721
I wonder, what kind of data model is used within the book. The example on http://homme.io/41721 seems very complete and doesn’t leave much space for doubts. So, how is it possible that two benchmarks, testing exactly the same thing, result in the exact opposite extrem cases, one could think of? With such kind of articles, we are all left alone, doing our own performance tests on each and every kind of data model.
A little mistake can be found here :
From your results, FOAF in Neo4j is 40% faster than MySQL but MySQL is 60% slower. *
Leave a Reply