Performance Archives - Page 2 of 6 - ArangoDB

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.

Benchmark: PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Neo4j, OrientDB and ArangoDB

060PerformanceTags:

In this blog post – which is a roundup of the performance blog series – I want to complete the picture of our NoSQL performance test and include some of the supportive feedback from the community. First of all, thanks for all your comments, contributions and suggestions to improve this open source NoSQL performance test (Github). This blog post describes a complete overhaul of the test with no need to read all the previous articles to get the picture – have a look at the appendix below to get all the details on hard- and software, the dataset and tests, used in this NoSQL performance comparison. Read more

Throughput Enhancements – a short Comparison with ArangoDB 2.6

00PerformanceTags:

We’ve recently been working on improving ArangoDB’s throughput, especially when using the ArangoDB’s interface.

In this post, I will show some of the improvements already achieved, though the work is not yet finished. Therefore, the results shown here are still somewhat preliminary.

We wanted to measure improvements for ArangoDB’s HTTP interface, and so we used wrk as an external HTTP load generator.

During the tests, wrk called some specific URLs on a local ArangoDB instance on an otherwise idle machine. The test was run with ArangoDB 2.6 and devel. The ArangoDB instances were started with their default configuration.

wrk was invoked with varying amounts of client connections and threads, so the tests cover serial and concurrent/parallel requests:

bash invoking wrk

The number of connections ($CONNECTIONS) and threads ($THREADS) were both varied from 1 to 8. wrk requires at least as many connections as threads.

More info

Multi-model benchmark round 1 – completed

013PerformanceTags: , ,
The latest edition of the NoSQL Performance Benchmark (2018) has been released. Please click here

It’s time for another update of my NoSQL performance blog series. This hopefully concludes the first part of this series with the initial databases ArangoDB, MongoDB, Neo4J and OrientDB and I can now start to check out other databases. I’m getting a lot of requests to test others as well and I’ll try to add them as soon as possible. Pull requests to my repository are also more than welcome. Remember it is all open-source.

The first set of benchmarks was started as a proof that multi-model can compete with specialized solutions and I started with the corresponding top dogs (Neo4J and MongoDB) for graphs and documents. After the first blog post, we were asked by the community to include OrientDB as the other multi-model database, too, which makes sense and therefore I expanded the initial lineup.

Concluding the tests did take a bit longer than expected, because vendors took up the challenge and improved their products with impressive results – as we asked them to do. Still, for each iteration we needed some time to run all tests, see below. However, on the upside, everyone can benefit from the improvements, which is an awesome by-product of the benchmark tests. More info

The great AQL shootout: ArangoDB 2.5 vs 2.6

00PerformanceTags: , ,

For the ArangoDB 2.6 release from last week we’ve put some performance tests together. The tests will compare the AQL query execution times in 2.5 and 2.6.

The results look quite promising: 2.6 outperformed 2.5 for all tested queries, mostly by factors of 2 to 5. A few dedicated AQL features in the tests got boosted even more, resulting in query execution time reductions of 90 % and more. Finally, the tests also revealed a dedicated case for which 2.6 provides a several hundredfold speedup.

Also good news is that not a single of the test queries ran slower in 2.6 than in 2.5.

More info

How an open-source competitive benchmark helped to improve databases

017General, PerformanceTags: , ,

TL;DR: Our initial benchmark has raised a lot of interest. Initially we wanted to show that multi-model can compete with other solutions. Due to the open and competitive way we have conducted the benchmark, the discussions around it have lead to improvements in all products, better algorithms, faster drivers and better ways to use the databases.

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

General Setup

From the outset we published all code and data and asked the vendors of all tested products as well as the general public, not only to run the tests on their own machines, but also to suggest improvements in the data models, test code, database configuration, driver usage and server configuration. This lead to a lively discussion, lots of pull requests and even to the release of improved versions of the database products themselves!

This process exceeded all our expectations and is yet another great example of community collaboration not only for fact finding but also for product improvements. Obviously, the same benchmark code will always show slightly different results when run on different hardware, operating systems, network setups and with more or less RAM. Therefore, a reliable result of a benchmark can essentially only be achieved by allowing everybody to run it on their own machines.

The technical setup is described in the above blog post. Let me briefly repeat the key facts.

More info

Speeding Up Array/object Literal Access

00PerformanceTags:

Last week some further optimization slipped into 2.6. The optimization can provide significant speedups in AQL queries using huge array/object bind parameters and passing them into V8-based functions.

It started with an ArangoDB user reporting a specific query to run unexpectedly slow. The part of the query that caused the problem was simple and looked like this:

In the original query, translations was a big, constant object literal. Think of something like the following, but with a lot more values:

The translations were used for replacing an attribute value in existing documents with a lookup table computed outside the AQL query.

The number of values in the translations object was varying from query to query, with no upper bound on the number of values. It was possible that the query was running with 50,000 lookup values in the translations object.

More info

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

Learn More About Graph Databases

Read our latest Graph and Beyond  white paper to gain insights into how ArangoDB graph databases can support many use cases.
DOWNLOAD NOW!
close-link
Click Me