I am less and less convinced that we should ever rely on a single database as "the best candidate" for persistence - this is the Oracle or SQLServer discussion based on the misguided notion that simplification comes from consolidating data in to a single vendor product. What differentiates database technologies is the CAP and index properties they use to let you write and retrieve data. A graph index is different to a columnar to a set, to a vector etc.
Best always depends on the usecase. While that sounds like a copout, what it means to say is that information access requirements should be informing your choice of databases. Put another way, you might store some bulk data in a columnar store and meta-data in a graph and some content in a KV store. Polyglot persistence is the trend in this space. Specifically - I wouldn't be using Neo4j to write device based event streams where Cassandra or HDFS is better optimised for that kind of high volume write scenario. However, I might calculate and store meta data findings from those streams in to Neo4j. hth -- 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.
