Do We Need Specialized Graph Databases?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advent of online social networks, there is an increasing demand for storage and processing of graph-structured data. Social networking applications pose new challenges to data management systems due to demand for real-time querying and manipulation of the graph structure. Recently, several systems specialized systems for graph-structured data have been introduced. However, whether we should abandon mature RDBMS technology for graph databases remains an ongoing discussion. In this paper we present an graph database benchmarking architecture built on the existing LDBC Social Network Benchmark. Our proposed architecture stresses the systems with an interactive transactional workload to better simulate the real-time nature of social networking applications. Using this improved architecture, we evaluated a selection of specialized graph databases, RDF stores, and RDBMSes adapted for graphs. We do not find that specialized graph databases provide definitively better performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".