Claudius Weinberger, Author at ArangoDB - Page 3 of 3

Sign up for ArangoDB Cloud

Before signing up, please accept our terms & conditions and privacy policy.

What to expect after you signup
You can try out ArangoDB Cloud FREE for 14 days. No credit card required and you are not obligated to keep using ArangoDB Cloud.

At the end of your free trial, enter your credit card details to continue using ArangoDB Cloud.

If you decide that ArangoDB Cloud is not (yet) for you, you can simply leave and come back later.

Performance comparison between ArangoDB, MongoDB, Neo4j and OrientDB

037PerformanceTags: ,
The latest edition of the NoSQL Performance Benchmark (2018) has been released. Please click here

My recent blog post “Native multi-model can compete” has sparked considerable interest on HN and other channels. As expected, the community has immediately suggested improvements to the published code base and I have already published updated results several times (special thanks go to Hans-Peter Grahsl, Aseem Kishore, Chris Vest and Michael Hunger).

Please note: An update is available (June ’15) and a new performance test with PostgreSQL added.

Here are the latest figures and diagrams:

chart_performance_r105

The aim of the exercise was to show that a multi-model database can successfully compete with special players on their own turf with respect to performance and memory consumption. Therefore it is not surprising that quite a few interested readers have asked, whether I could include OrientDB, the other prominent native multi-model database.

More info

Native multi-model can compete with pure document and graph databases

03PerformanceTags: , ,

Claudius Weinberger, CEO ArangoDB

TL;DR Native multi-model databases combine different data models like documents or graphs in one tool and even allow to mix them in a single query. How can this concept compete with a pure document store like MongoDB or a graph database like Neo4j? I myself and a lot of folks in the community asked that question.

So here are some benchmark results: 100k reads → competitive; 100k writes → competitive; friends-of-friends → superior; shortest-path → superior; aggregation → superior.

Feel free to comment, join the discussion on HN and contribute – it’s all on Github.

The latest edition of the NoSQL Performance Benchmark (2018) has been released. Please click here

More info

ArangoDB in San Francisco / Bay Area

02GeneralTags:

Join parts of the ArangoDB team in San Francisco. Max and Claudius are visiting the Bay Area from mid-February till end of March. Starting with the StrataConf in San Jose, Feb 17–20, 2015 Max and Claudius want to meet people, start cooperations, visit meetups and tell people in the Bay Area about ArangoDB.

If you know any hackerspaces we definitely should go, drop us a line and we will try to be there. We would be happy to see some of you guys in person and to respond to every question you may have about ArangoDB.

New Plugin for ElasticSearch by ArangoDB

01GeneralTags:

ArangoDB River Plugin for ElasticSearch

ArangoDB offers now a plugin for automated data transfer from ArangoDB into ElasticSearch.

If you want to benefit from ElasticSearch’s full text search capabilities for your ArangoDB document data, the easiest way to do so is to use this new plugin.
Implementing the push approach, otherwise, would make it necessary to write your own indexer, using your favorite programming language.
The ArangoDB river plugin software is an initial alpha version and licensed under the Apache 2 license.
More info

Is UNQL Dead?

04Architecture, Query LanguageTags: ,
Note: We changed the name of the database in May 2012. AvocadoDB is now called ArangoDB.

UNQL started with quite some hype last year. However, after some burst of activity the project came to a hold. So it seems, that – at least as a project – UNQL has been a failure. IMHO one of the major issues with the current UNQL is, that it tries to cover everything in NoSQL, from key-value stores to document-stores to graph-database. Basically you end up with greatest common divisor – namely key-value access. But with graph structures and also document-structures you really want to supports joins, paths or some sort of sub-structures.

Apart from all the technical and theoretical benefits of SQL and what advantages the underlying theory has to offer, the major plus from an users point of view is that it is readable. You simple can see an SQL statement – be it in C, Java, Ruby – and understand what is going on. It is declarative, not imperative. With other imperative solution, like a fluent interface or a map-reduce, you need to understand the underlying syntax or language. With SQL you only need to understand English – at least most of the time.

And here I think is where UNQL is totally right. We need something similar for the NoSQL world. But it should not try to be a “fits all situation”. It should be a fit for 80% of the problems. For simple key-values stores a fluent-interface is indeed enough. For very complex graph traversals a traversal program must be written. For very complex map-reduces you might need to write a program – but check out Google’s talk (www.nosql-matters.org/program) about NoNoSQL. There they describe why they are developing a SQL-like interface for Map/Reduce.

In my experience most of the time you have a set of collections holding different “types” of documents with some relations between them. One of the biggest advantages of document stores or graph databases is that you can have lists and sub-objects. The problem with SQL is, that it has no good way to deal with these structures. So I believe UNQL would be quite successful if it would concentrate on these strong advantages of NoSQL, instead of trying to unify everything – especially after hear Jan’s talk about a document query language at the NoSQL Cologne UG (an English version is also available).

Secure Your Spot Today For ArangoDB Summit.

Join Team Avocado on October 4th and 5th, 2022 for our first ever two day industry event.
REGISTER NOW!
close-link
Click Me