Performance of Graph and Relational Databases in Complex Queries
Source abstract
Abstract
In developing NoSQL databases, a major motivation is to achieve better efficient query performance compared with relational databases. The graph database is a NoSQL paradigm where navigation is based on links instead of joining tables. Links can be implemented as pointers, and following a pointer is a constant time operation, whereas joining tables is more complicated and slower, even in the presence of foreign keys. Therefore, link-based navigation has been seen as a more efficient query approach than using join operations on tables. Existing studies strongly support this assumption. However, query complexity has received less attention. For example, in enterprise information systems, queries are usually complex so data need to be collected from several tables or by traversing paths of graph nodes of different types. In the present study, we compared the query performance of a graph-based database system (Neo4j) and relational database systems (MySQL and MariaDB). The effect of different efficiency issues (e.g., indexing and optimization) were included in the comparison in order to investigate the most efficient solutions for different query types. The outcome is that although Neo4j is more efficient for simple queries, MariaDB is essentially more efficient when the complexity of queries increases. The study also highlighted how dramatically the efficiency of relational database has grown during the last decade.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Graph Theory and Algorithms · Cloud Computing and Resource Management · Advanced Database Systems and Queries
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Computing Sciences, Tampere University, 33100 Tampere, Finland
References (26)
Show source-provided references
1. Will NoSQL databases live up to their promise?10.1109/MC.2010.58 ↗
2. Győrödi, C., Dumşe-Burescu, D., Zmaranda, D., Győrödi, R., Gabor, G., and Pecherle, G. (2020). Performance analysis of NoSQL and relational databases with CouchDB and MySQL for application’s data storage. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10238524 ↗
3. Survey of graph database models10.1145/1322432.1322433 ↗
4. Khan, W., Ahmad, W., Luo, B., and Ahmed, E. (2019, January 15–17). SQL Database with physical database tuning technique and NoSQL graph database comparisons. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 3rd Information Technology, Networking, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (ITNEC), Chengdu, China.10.1109/ITNEC.2019.8729264 ↗
5. Holzschuher, F., and Peinl, R. (2013, January 18–22). Performance of graph query languages: Comparison of cypher, gremlin and native access in Neo4j. Proceedings of the Joint EDBT/ICDT 2013 Workshops, Genova, Italy.10.1145/2457317.2457351 ↗
6. Predictive performance comparison analysis of relational & NoSQL graph databases
7. Vicknair, C., Macias, M., Zhao, Z., Nan, X., Chen, Y., and Wilkins, D. (2010, January 15–17). A comparison of a graph database and a relational database: A data provenance perspective. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Southeast Regional Conference, Oxford, MI, USA.10.1145/1900008.1900067 ↗
8. Comparative analysis of relational and graph databases
9. Concept-based query language approach to enterprise information systems10.1080/17517575.2011.598241 ↗
10. Aufaure-Portier, M.-A., and Trépied, C. (1996, January 8–10). A survey of query languages for geographic information systems. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Interfaces to Databases, Edinburgh, UK.10.14236/ewic/IDS1996.1 ↗
11. A query language for biological networks10.1093/bioinformatics/bti1105 ↗
12. Hardwick, M., Samaras, G., and Spooner, D. (1987, January 3–5). Evaluating recursive queries in CAD using an extended projection function. Proceedings of the IEEE 3rd International Conference on Data Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, USA.10.1109/ICDE.1987.7272367 ↗
13. Cooper, B.F., Silberstein, A., Tam, E., Ramakrishnan, R., and Sears, R. (2010, January 10–11). Benchmarking cloud serving systems with YCSB. Proceedings of the 1st ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, Indianapolis, IN, USA.10.1145/1807128.1807152 ↗
14. Oltp-bench: An extensible testbed for benchmarking relational databases10.14778/2732240.2732246 ↗
15. GitHub (2020, December 13). InvoicingDBTestBench Repository. Available online: https://github.com/homebeach/InvoicingDBTestBench.
16. (2022, June 20). DB-Engines. Available online: https://db-engines.com/.
17. Tongkaw, S., and Tongkaw, A. (2016, January 10–12). A comparison of database performance of MariaDB and MySQL with OLTP workload. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS), Langkawi, Malaysia.10.1109/ICOS.2016.7881999 ↗
18. Shalygina, G., and Novikov, B. (2017, January 21). Implementing common table expressions for MariaDB. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Software Engineering and Information Management (SEIM-2017), St. Petersburg, Russia.
19. Stanescu, L. (2021, January 2–5). A Comparison between a Relational and a Graph Database in the Context of a Recommendation System. Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems, Online.10.15439/2021F33 ↗
20. Sholichah, R., Jayanty, M.I., and Andry, A. (2021., January 24–25). Performance Analysis of Neo4j and MySQL Databases using Public Policies Decision Making Data. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Technology, Computer, and Electrical Engineering (ICITACEE), Semarang, Indonesia.10.1109/ICITACEE50144.2020.9239206 ↗
21. Which category is better: Benchmarking relational and graph database management systems10.1007/s41019-019-00110-3 ↗
22. Data.World (2022, May 02). Names Datasets. Available online: https://data.world/datasets/names.
23. OpenAddresses (2022, May 02). A Summary View of OpenAddresses Data. Available online: http://results.openaddresses.io.
24. Neo4j, Inc. (2021, December 01). The Neo4j Cypher Manual v4.2. CALL {Subquery}. Available online: https://neo4j.com/docs/cypher-manual/current/clauses/call-subquery.
25. (2022, May 02). MariaDB Corporation, MariaDB Enterprise vs. MySQL Enterprise Edition 8 [White Paper]. Available online: https://mariadb.com/products/enterprise/comparison/.
26. (2022, April 24). MySQL 5.5 Reference Manual. InnoDB I/O Subsystem Changes. Available online: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957–01/mysql-refman-5.5/introduction.html#innodb-io-changes.