Could be wrong, but I read the article end "We highly appreciate the feedback from Neo Technology representatives!" as a wish, not a comment on. :-)
On Monday, November 3, 2014 6:58:18 PM UTC+1, Mark Findlater wrote: > > Yes, I believe istc-bigdata really appreciated it. > > Article begins - "Neo Technology representatives contacted us and said..." > > Article ends - "We highly appreciate the feedback from Neo Technology > representatives!" > > I think there is still a wait for Kamilos to share further information.. > > M > > On Monday, 3 November 2014 17:50:55 UTC, Ton Akveld wrote: >> >> Interesting to know if Neo Technology gave feedback as requested: *We >> highly appreciate the feedback from Neo Technology representatives!* >> From: >> http://istc-bigdata.org/index.php/benchmarking-graph-databases-updates/ >> >> On Monday, November 3, 2014 4:43:31 PM UTC+1, Ton Akveld wrote: >>> >>> Hi group, >>> >>> I just saw this question, and neo4j alleged performance worries me too. >>> Especially when remarks like this: <Neo4j's main bottleneck is the >>> memory it consumes. An OSM file up to one >>> gigabyte seems to be the limit for Neo4j; importing larger datasets >>> takes a long time and queries become >>> slow.> >>> What worries me even more is the absence of reactions of Neo4j's TLM. >>> How to convince the world of positive use of Neo4j's graph database when >>> these 'rumors' are not disproved? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ton >>> >>> >>> On Friday, October 31, 2014 9:10:10 PM UTC+1, gg4u wrote: >>>> >>>> hi, >>>> also interested in this. >>>> i d love to benchmark similar queries against NoSql (dynamo on aws) >>>> could you please share a foo table publicly? >>>> my model on nosql is >>>> node A as index, all neighbors of A as value (a whole string). >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neo4j" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
