Hi Christophe, I'm Frank from ArangoDB. The author of the article, Claudius, is my colleague - he currently not at his computer. Therefore, I try to answer your questions. Please let me know, if you need more information. Any help with the queries is more than welcome. If we can improve them in any way, please let us know.
- we raised the ulimit as requested by neo4j when it started: open files (-n) 40000 - there is one index on PROFILES: neo4j-sh (?)$ schema Indexes ON :PROFILES(_key) ONLINE - as far as we understood, there is no need to create an index for edges - we used "seraph" as node.js driver, because that was recommend in the node user group - we set dbms.pagecache.memory=20g (we were told in talk, that this is nowadays the only cache parameter that matters). - we started with ./bin/neo4j start - JVM is java version "1.7.0_79" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_79-b15) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 24.79-b02, mixed mode) Thanks for your help Frank Am Freitag, 5. Juni 2015 19:25:09 UTC+2 schrieb Christophe Willemsen: > > I have looked at their repository too. Most of the queries seems 'almost' > correct, but there is no information concerning the real schema indexes, > the configuration of the JVM etc.., also the results are the throughput so > I wait for someone maybe more experimented in these kind of benchmarks in > order to reply to it. > > Le vendredi 5 juin 2015 04:32:59 UTC+2, Michael Hunger a écrit : >> >> I'm currently on the road but there are several things wrong with it. >> Will look into more detail in the next few days >> >> Michael >> >> Von meinem iPhone gesendet >> >> Am 04.06.2015 um 12:57 schrieb Andrii Stesin <[email protected]>: >> >> Just ran into the following article (published supposedly today Jun 04, >> 2015) which claims to contain comparison of benchmark results: Native >> multi-model can compete with pure document and graph databases >> <https://www.arangodb.com/2015/06/multi-model-benchmark/> which makes me >> think that there is something wrong with either their data model or with >> test setup, because results for Neo4j are surprisingly low. >> >> Am I the only one out there who feel the same? >> >> WBR, >> Andrii >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> -- 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.
