NoSQL Database for Software Project Data

Anna Bj¨rklund o

January 18, 2011 Master’s Thesis in Computing Science, 30 credits Supervisor at CS-UmU: Ola ˚gren A Examiner: Fredrik Georgsson

Ume˚ University a
Department of Computing Science SE-901 87 UME˚ A SWEDEN

Abstract The field of databases have exploded in the last couple of years. New architectures try to meet the need to store more and more data and new kinds of data. The old relational model is no longer the only way and the NoSQL movement is not a trend but a new way of making the database fit the data, not the other way around. This master thesis report aims to find an efficient and well designed solution for storing and retrieving huge amounts of software project data at Tieto. It starts by looking at different architectures and trying three to see if any of them can solve the problem. The three databases selected are the relational database PostgreSQL, the graph database Neo4j and the key value store Berkeley DB. These are all implemented as a Web service and time is measured to find out which, if any, can handle the data at Tieto. In the end it is clear that the best database for Tieto is Berkeley DB. Even if Neo4j is almost as fast, it is still new and not as mature as Berkeley DB.

ii

. . . . . . . 1 1 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 9 9 2 Modern Databases 2. . 15 Berkely DB . . . . . . . . . . . 17 . . . . .two different ways of achieving partitioning . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2. . . . . .1 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 A brief history . . . 19 21 Neo4j . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3. .2 2. . . . .2 4. .1 4. . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 5 Results iii PostgreSQL . . Storing data today . . . . .3 The data . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . 16 The questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Strengths and weaknesses . . . . . . . .3 2. . . . The CAP Theorem . . . . . . . 3 The problem at Tieto 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 4. Column store . .3. . . . . . . . .3.4 ACID v. . . . . . . . . . . . .Contents 1 Introduction 1. . . . BASE . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Strengths and weaknesses . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . Graph database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Document store . . . . . .3. . . .2 4. . . 12 13 4 The solutions 4. . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Paper outline . . . . . .3. . . 14 Strengths and weaknesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Questions . . . . . . . . 13 The questions . . . . . . .2 3. . . Key value store . . . . . . . . . . .1 4.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Server times . . . . . . . . . . . 35 A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7 Acknowledgements References 31 33 A Data from test runs 35 A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv CONTENTS 6 Conclusions 29 6. . . . . . . . . . .1 Future work . . . . 38 . . . . . . .2 Client times . . . . . . . . . . .

example of how a property is shared between different nodes example of a consistent tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3. . .5 5. example of an inconsistent tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Total time for the client. . . . data . Total time for the client for question 7 at different amounts of Client times for question 8-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3. . .4 5. . . . . . . . .2 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Client times for 10% of the data without PostgreSQL . . . . .3 5. . Client times for question 1-6 . .2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 11 12 An example of how a shared property gets duplicated in Berkeley DB . . .6 An An An An overview of the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 23 24 25 26 27 v . . . . . . . . . . . . . .List of Figures 3. .4 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total time for the server. . . . . .

vi LIST OF FIGURES .

. Time in milliseconds. . . . . Client times for all test runs at 100%. . . . . . . .2 A. . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .1 A. . . . . . . . .4 A. . .8 A. . . . . . . . Time in milliseconds. . . . . . . Time in seconds. .6 A. The server times for the hash table. . . . . . .1% of the data. .List of Tables 2.1%. . . . .7 A. . Time in milliseconds. . Client times for all test runs at 10%. Time in seconds. Client times for all test runs at 1%. . . . Time in seconds.5 A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 An example of data organized in a table . . . . . . . Time in milliseconds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 A. . . Time in seconds. . . . . 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 vii . . .1 4. . The server times for 10% of the data. . . . The server times for 100% of the data. . . . . . The server times for 1% of the data. . . The table retured by PostgreSQL for the inconsistent example The server times for 0. . Time in milliseconds.1 A. . . . . 6 . . . . . . . Client times for all test runs at 0. .

viii LIST OF TABLES .

Chapter 4 describes the three different solutions implemented and where the strengths and weaknesses lie in each solution from a theorecial point of view. 1 . Chapter 3 takes a deeper look at the problem at Tieto. This paper will look at three different database solutions for software project data at Tieto Ume˚ and compare a them. First a theoretical approach is made and then all three are implemented and are tested to see which is fastest in a test with the real data. Since the 70s and into the new millennium the relational model was the dominant and almost all databases followed the same basic architecture. Chapter 5 presents the result of the implementation with extra attention to performance and the specific requirements from Tieto. 1. When that decision is made it is time to choose a vendor that meets the companies requirements regarding price. At the beginning of the new millennium developers started to realize that their data did not fit the relational model and some of them started to develop other architectures for storing data in databases. Chapter 6 addresses what is left to do and how Tieto can move forward with this. the main problem is deciding which architecture of data storing is best suited for the data.Chapter 1 Introduction Today there exist many different types of databases. the data they have and how this data fits different architectures.1 Paper outline Chapter 2 begins with a brief history and then takes a deeper look at the different solutions for data storing that exist today. not only the traditional relational SQL database but several other architectures designed to handle different types of data. reliability and so forth. When choosing a database today the problem is much more complex then deciding on a vendor for the relational database.

2 Chapter 1. Introduction .

today there are a lot of different markets with completely different requirements. The idea is not that relational databases are bad and wrong. The continuing trends of cloud computing and growth of social networks will only fuel the need for large data stores even more.Chapter 2 Modern Databases 2.1 A brief history In the 70s databases was a growing field and there were some debate on how to organize the data. There were some products but most of them were only available within the company and for a specific solution. But if the data does not fit the relational model it is worthwhile to look at another types of database. The hardware design in the 70s and 80s were much different from today. Several started to develop different ways to organize their data depending on their specific needs. Today processors are thousands of times faster. just that in some cases the relational model just isn’t enough. IBM developed System R and it was the first system to implement a Standard Query Language (SQL). such as MySQL and PostgreSQL. System R is the foundation for many of todays popular DBMSs (Database Management System)[9]. Today the expression is often thought of as Not only SQL and is the movement of other database solutions than a relational database. At that time developers started to think outside the box and realized that they had data that did not fit the relational model. If the If the relational model fits the data then it is a good idea to use it. In early 2009 it was reused by the organizers of an event to discuss open source distributed databases and was a reference to the naming convention of traditional relational databases. The phrase NoSQL was first used in 1998 as a name for a lightweight relational database that did not expose a SQL interface. memory is thousands of times larger and the main bottleneck is the bandwidth between disk and main memory. The two main disadvantages that RDBMS have are that they do not scale easily (in the next Section it will be obvious why) and they often fail at capturing the relation between the data. Despite the changes in requirements and hardware the relational model was the dominate one until the beginning of the new millennium. The main market for RDBMS (Relational DBMS) in those days was business data processing. 3 . Only a few years ago these problems was not such a big problem but the amount of data that is in store today is infinitely much more than only ten years ago. in the beginning there was a text terminal and today there is a graphical interface. Yet another difference is the user interface.

In 2002 Gilbert and Lynch proved that Brewer was right for asynchronous network. but not all the time. the data fits the relational model and there are no requirements on uptime then the relational model is a good choice. ACID (Atomicity Consistent Isolation Durability) and BASE (Basically. Today transactions are something natural and most databases support it. a Web service can at most choose two of the three.2. Modern Databases 2.4 Chapter 2. The CAP theorem states that it is impossible for a Web service to guarantee all three of the following properties: Consistency – all clients have the same view of the same data at all times Availability – all clients can always read and write Partition-tolerance – the system works well despite physical network partitions All three are desirable for all Web services but at PODC 2000 Brewer [3] made the conjecture that it is impossible to have all three. Most relational databases can promise consistency and availability and this is good for smaller system. One node can never guarantee a given uptime and for some companies this is so important that they can tolerate a database that is inconsistent at times to guarantee availability. BASE . 2. which is a network where the nodes does not share a clock but have to rely on the messages that are sent between them. it only means that the database cannot guarantee that every node have the exact same picture of the data at all times.1 ACID v. the database will be consistent at some time but not all the time. If there are requirements on uptime or the data is massive there might be necessary to partition the data between several nodes and make a compromise on one of the other. The CAP theorem states that any database solution can only fulfill two of the criteria and that it is up to the architecture to choose which two. Since this is the case for most web services it has a major impact on the decision to choose the right model for storing data. it acts as an atomic operation .2 The CAP Theorem To be able to discuss the different database solutions that exist today it is important to have an understanding of the CAP theorem [3]. Jim Gray [4] proposed how a partitioned database could guarantee consistency by making sure updates were done in transactions that followed some given guidelines. They do guarantee that all nodes will have the same picture at some time. Eventually consistent) are two different ways of doing this. Available. The properties of a transaction are Consistency a transaction only commits if it preserves the consistency of the database Atomicity a transaction either commits or not. some even demand it for some type of update. ACID and BASE are not databases but more of organisation schemas that can give guidelines how a database can operate to be as good as it can be for the third criteria. But in 1981 when Jim Gray reinvented transactions it was something new and it is on that foundation most systems are built today. In 1981.two different ways of achieving partitioning If a database needs to be physically partitioned then the CAP-theorem states that it needs to choose to give up either A (availability) or C (consistency). If this is the main goal. Soft state. One important note is that inconsistency is not always inconsistency. This is referred to as eventual consistency and as the term implies.

Available. There are also several open source solutions with varying quality. There are no reasons to choose an RDBMS and try to fit the data into it. The important thing is to choose which data to allow inconsistency on and partition the system according to this. In 1998 Jim Gray was awarded the Turing Award1 for seminal contributions to database and transaction processing research and technical leadership in system implementation [14]. it was added later in 1983 by Andreas Reuter and Theo Haerder [5] to form the acronym ACID (Atomicity Consistent Isolation Durability). Ebay [7] suggested that trading some consistency for availability can lead to dramatic improvements in scalability. for example when we pay with our credit card it takes a day or two before it can be seen on the bank statement. Because of this they tolerate that different nodes have different views of some the data at short periods of time. Storing data today 5 Durability once a transaction is committed. They risk losing millions in revenue if customers cannot access their web store at all times because they have customers from all around the world. Today there are several solutions that operate in different areas of the CAP theorem and the same database can exist in different areas depending on configurations. it cannot roll back Isolation no other transaction can see the events in a non-committed transaction In the original paper there were no I. 2. Amazons Dynamo and Cassandra (used by Facebook and Twitter) name a few. The term NoSQL does not denote a specific type of database but can be divided into several different types of 1 The Turing Award is recognized as the ”highest distinction in Computer science” and ”Nobel Prize of computing”. Functional partitioning is dependent on the actual data stored and for some systems this technique will not work well. instead there is money and time to be saved by choosing carefully and finding the model which fits the data the best. even if it only is for a moment. Googles Big Table. His solution has the acronym BASE (Basically. the cost to keep the data consistent is not nonexistent. hence the eventually consistent part of the acronym. Another problem with the rules is performance. As a solution to these problems Dan Prittchett. Soft state. The main point here is to allow some of the data to be inconsistent at some times but not all the time. Eventually consistent) and uses functional partitioning as a method of partitioning the data. It is worth mentioning that not all non-relational databases operate in the same space of the CAP-theorem and there is no clear way of saying that a specific type of NoSQL database is in any specific area. but the price for this must be availability according to the CAP theorem. The notion of having inconsistent data.2.3. This is something we all come in contact with at some point in our lives. Another example of this is Amazon and their solution Dynamo [2]. is very scary to some computer scientist. Grays rules guarantee that a database stays consistent even then partitioned. It allows some data to be inconsistent between different partitions at some period in time and uses persistent messaging to make the data consistent at a later point.3 Storing data today Today there exist some famous non-relational database systems. If Amazon tolerated downtime on parts of the store at any given time the word would spread and they risk losing reputation and customers. . When it is night at one part of the world another part has daytime and millions of potential customers choose between them and another online book store.

The key is used to access the stored value and the stored value can be anything.1: An example of data organized in a table The data cannot be stored in two dimensions on disc since disc is sequentially accessed. The traditional way a RBDMS organizes the data is in records and these are continuously placed in storage. the database engine handling the persistent data is often very advanced. John Svensson. thus making it faster for some types of operations. this is a model that suits lots of data and is easy to understand for most humans. 2. Storgatan 54. Another famous one is Googles Bigtable. In that case a read-optimized system is better suited and a way to achieve this is a column-oriented organization [10]. Cassandra is one of the most famous of the wide column stores and is used by both Facebook and Twitter. 735 12 ¨rebro.3. Name John Svensson Malin Olsson Ove Nykvist Birth date 1976-02-10 1986-09-23 1967-05-02 Address Nygatan 12 Storgatan 54 Hammargr¨nd 2 a Zipcode 123 94 345 19 735 12 City ¨ Orebro G¨teborg o Sundsvall Table 2. One disadvantage of this type of storage is that it makes joins very time consuming and some column stores does not support join operations on the data.2 Key value store A key value store stores anything as a key/value pair. 345 19. 123 94. Storgatan 54. 1976-02-10. 1967-05-02 Nygatan 12. 1986-09-23. G¨teborg o Ove Nykvist. 735 12. Modern Databases non-relational databases that all have different characteristics and are suitable for different types of data and in different situations. Hammargr¨nd 2. Ove Nykvist 1976-02-10. in theory there . Malin Olsson. 345 19. John Svensson. This row-oriented architecture gives fast writes and is called write optimized. This may seem very simple and it is. Sundsvall a This is optimized for systems that does lots of writes but does not work well with systems that handle few writes with lots of data in each write and lots of querying in between the writes. Nygatan 12.1 Column store Most data today is organized in tables. Hammargr¨nd 2 a 123 94. 2. ¨rebro O Malin Olsson. In a column store the data is stored in columns instead. 1986-09-23. Sundsvall O o Then the columns of data are stored together and when querying it is not necessary to read unimportant columns to memory.3. but only on the surface. The main advantage with this type of storage is that it is schema less. G¨teborg . 1967-05-02. though Twitter use a slightly different configuration called Twissandra.6 Chapter 2. making it faster to read a particular column to memory and making calculations on all values in a column.

3. This model will then work poorly and it would have been better to use another type of database instead. The value can be anything but is usually an object of the implementing language or a string. This also allows for a much more flexible solution than an RDBMS since the database has no schema.3. an integer or something like that. 2. More on that will follow later. There will be problems if the data is tabular in nature with little or no relationship between nodes. In the last years there have been an exponential growth of data and the need to use something else than an RDBMS has also grown exponentially. Some vendors include some way of indexing the nodes for easy access. The most famous of the key value stores is Amazons Dynamo with was already discussed earlier. it has to be structured in some way. 2. As with all these different ways of storing data it will only work if the data fits the model.3 Document store A document store is a special kind of key value store. The main advantage with this type of storing is the possibility to traverse the nodes with known mathematical graph traversing algorithms.4 Graph database In a graph database the data is stored as nodes and vertices between the nodes. . It is easy to support physical partitioning and most support the eventually consistent idea behind BASE. The main disadvantage is that inhereted relations between data are lost and since anything can be stored it is up to the client to interpret the data returned by the store. The main advantage is the speed and ease that data can be stored in a persistent way.2. In practice the key is usually some primitive of the programming language. MongoDB [1] and CouchDB [12]. An open source alternative to Dynamo is Voldemort [13] Another key value store is Berkeley DB which is one of the databases that is used in this paper. Storing data today 7 are no constraints on the key or the value. The data is extracted by traversing the nodes and vertices in different ways. even if the attribute is something not even conceived at design time.3. Because of this there are demands on the data in the document. it does not store the document (the value) as a mass of data. The notion of storing data in something else besides an RDBMS is nothing new. JSON or something else that the database can understand. something that is hard to achieve with a traditional RDBMS. The nodes have attributes or properties and the vertices have types or names. This makes the document store very flexible. there have been several projects for as long as there have been computers. This is usually accomplice by XML. This allows queries on the data and not just the keys as is the case for a key value store. and it uses information in the document to index the document. There are no problems adding attributes to records after they have been inserted into the database. Some famous document stores are Raven [8]. a string.

8 Chapter 2. Modern Databases .

These properties are removed from the data for this thesis to make the implementation a little bit easier.1 is a picture to help understand the organization of the data and also give an idea of how many nodes there are in each level. and D. Figure 3. 9 . At the same time they want to know if a different kind of database can do the job better. the B and C nodes are very similar and have properties that they share.1 The data The content and the nature of the content of the data is a company secret. B. If a B node is entered into the database without all C nodes it relates to already being there. One of the questions Tieto wanted to have answered is if a more specific design of an RDBMS can help with scalability. in the implementations there exist a relationship both ways. Since the main goal of this thesis is to implement and test different databases and see if they can handle the amount of data these simplifications should not make the result differ too much from reality. the nodes also have some metadata attached to them and each node has a predecessor. Therefore this thesis will only give a general schematic picture of the data and not use the correct names or labels. in the real data there are some vertices from A to C. 40 million relationships between nodes and 100 million values. The easiest way of describing the data is by using a graph. There are four different levels of nodes. This became a big problem when the amount of data became much larger than anticipated at design time. This is a simplification of the real data. 3. Because of this it is a requirement among all solutions that nodes are entered in the right order. The C nodes have information about which D nodes it relates to. making the picture a little more complicated. In total there are 4 million nodes.Chapter 3 The problem at Tieto The database today has two major problems.2 is a small section of the big graph and an illustration of how one of the properties of the data in the nodes makes them connected. the B node cannot be stored. the B nodes have information on which C nodes they relate to and so forth. The information of the relationships lies entirely on the upper nodes. C. There are no vertices between nodes of the same level and only vertices to a node of the adjacent level. first a look at the data at Tieto. The choice is described later. A. A C node has no information about which B nodes it connect to. it is designed to handle any type of data and scalability was not an issue for the designers. The picture is an overview of how the data is organized. Figure 3. This is the nature of the data.

The nature of the graph. The problem at Tieto Figure 3.2: An example of how a property is shared between different nodes . the number of nodes and the number of properties shared between the nodes differ a lot depending on where in graph the calculations are made. An algorithm that works nice in one part of the graph may be a catastrophe at another part. Figure 3.10 Chapter 3. the number of vertices between the different levels. These implementations try to be as good as it gets for the majority of the graph but not optimal for any one part of it. This makes it harder to implement an optimal solution.1: An overview of the data A node has on average one or zero connections to properties but the number vary a lot and others have up to ten.

B3-C4 and B4-C4. In Figure 3. This type is called the simple questions without connections and there are nine in this solution. Figure 3.3: An example of a consistent tree Note that the attribute in question is a very specific attribute and that it is only in a sub tree under a given A that this is interesting. For all cases of inconsistency the database returns the value of the attribute and all B-C pairs where the C-node has the value of the attribute.3. In this case the question will return a=4 and a list of BC-pair.3 and 3. They do occur at some points and the solution at Tieto today cannot tell in which nodes the problem is. The first type is a simple get a set of nodes with a given property. In PostgreSQL a typical question is SELECT * FROM table WHERE table.3 the sub tree of A is consistent but in 3.4 there are two C-nodes that have the same value of a=4 but they are not the same node. To illustrate this see Figure 3.2.a = X AND table.4. How and why inconsistencies occur is to closely connect to the nature of the data to be revealed here.b = Y.2 The Questions The questions asked to the database can be divided into two different types. In two different sub trees there are some C nodes with the same value that are not the same C node but this is permitted. The properties are one or two and all nodes returned must have the given property. The Questions 11 3. The other type is a set of more complicated questions where the connections between the nodes are explored. it only gives true or false if the sub tree is consistent or not. unique to A2 and all nodes A1 and A2 have in common in three different lists – Check if a tree under A is consistent and if it is inconsistent return how it is inconsistent A sub tree under an A is inconsistent if two C have the same value in a specific attribute but are not the same node. If the sub tree is consistent the question only return true. It is only in the sub tree of one A that all C nodes with the same value in the attribute must be the same node. . These questions are – Return a sub tree of a given A – Return all B that connect to a given C – Check the difference between two A. B2-C2. return all nodes unique to A1.

a free Open Source RDBMS that is known to have good performance.3 The databases One of the databases chosen was PostgreSQL. One major advantage was also that Tieto already had this installed for other testing purpose. This was because they are very different in their architecture from the other two and it is interesting to see if they are as good as they should be on the simple requests and how bad they are on the more complicated questions. One major advantage was also that it is written in Java and well documented.12 Chapter 3. The problem at Tieto Figure 3. Because of the nature of the data one of the databases is a graph oriented database and the choice was Neo4j. Berkeley DB is also well documented and has several examples. Several were considered but the choice fell on Berkeley DB. It previously only existed in C with a library that could run the C-version in Java but with the new version the cost for inter language translation was avoided. The last database was a choice of either a document store or a key value store. . a Swedish open source graph database. a key value store that had recently been rewritten for Java.4: An example of an inconsistent tree 3.

The three different data stores implements the same interface and are therefore interchangeable without making any changes to the Web service methods. This was a requirement from Tieto as this would make it easier to integrate this into their existing systems.Chapter 4 The solutions The solution is implemented in Java 1. This makes it hard to have any other solution than the one chosen.1 PostgreSQL The PostgreSQL solution is implemented in version 8 and uses java. All questions regarding the relationship between the B and C nodes will be costly any way it is done. all data is still relevant in one way or another. 4. The property described in Section 3. This may seem a bit strange and if any of these databases are integrated into Tietos existing systems they need some work in this area. The main reason for this limitation is time.1 is also in its own table with a join table that tells which property belongs to which node. All three solutions operate in the same space of the CAP theorem.6 as a Web service. This is not possible for this data. Since this is intended as an internal system the data source is trusted and there are no protections against malicious data. The information about these connections must be in the database and the other solutions for achieving this would have other problems. One of the main problems with PostgreSQL can be found in this design. Another possibility would be if the graph could be divided into several smaller sub graphs. this is a new design that tries to be as good as it can be for this version of the data. Then the table could be split into several smaller tables. One way would be to let the table for B nodes contain this information but the number of connections differs widely between different B nodes. Both Neo4j and Berkeley can be partitioned if the need should arise. Pruning the data and discard some of the nodes is not an option. This is not the structure of Tietos current solution. The only protection that exists is against faulty data. The time for this thesis is limited and it was decided that it was better get as much functionality as possible instead of spending time on error handling for something that may be discarded. none of them are physically partitioned.* library to communicate with the database. When asking for a specific B it is necessary to query over this table because one important part of a B is with C it connects to.sql. not even when looking at only the B and C levels so this 13 . one table for each of the levels of nodes with a serial id field and three tables containing the relationship between the different layers of nodes. there are approximately 18 million rows in the table joining B and C nodes. The main table structure is straight forward.

1 keep C and D in a structure . The return structure is not in row format but contains the same information. they only return the sub tree or the list of B nodes and does nothing unexpected.1 for the previous inconsistent example.1: The table retured by PostgreSQL for the inconsistent example cannot be done without having more than one copy of some of the nodes. They are not particularly interesting or special. The first nine questions are simple select with some joins for retrieving the data. Question 10 and 11 does nothing special. If there is any more work done on this solution this questions is definitely worth looking at and implementing a better solution. The java program then has the following algorithm to remove the rows that does not contain the inconsistent a-value. This is sorted primarily on the value of a and secondarily on C.1 is this C the same as the previous row 2. Given the results of the test runs this is probably not the optimal way of doing this even thought java is good at hashing strings. This was really hard to implement and the final solution is one that uses PostgreSQL for the most part and some java for the final logic. The queries are written to allow the query planner in PostgreSQL as much freedom as possible since it probably is better at the planning then the author of this paper. For examples of this see Figure 3.1. In the test runs the PostgreSQL server was run on the same computer and thus eliminating the time it would take the data to be transferred in a network. The last query determined if a sub tree of A was consistent or not.id B1 B2 B2 B3 B5 B3 B4 Table 4. 4. only simple selects.1. This is the only solution that requires anything else than a java library since the PostgreSQL server runs independently from the java program.4. 1 Fetch the values for the new row 2 is this a-value the same as the previous row 2.14 Chapter 4.1 The questions In this Section the more interesting solutions will be described in some detail. The solutions a 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 B. Question 12 gets the unique labelling string for the two different sub trees for the different A nodes.3 and 3.id C1 C1 C2 C4 C4 C3 C3 C. Note that before the first row is calculated the variables keeping track of the previous row are set to empty strings and therefore are a value but matches noting from the database. The query to PostgreSQL returns table 4. The overhead of querying the database is something to consider and it is worth a little more logic in the program to not have to query the database more than once for each question. The logic of this solution strives to make as few queries to the database as possible without having to loop the resulting rows more than once. It then uses javas set operators with a hash set on the two sets of strings to get the three different subsets. organized in a slightly different way.

one going up and one going down.2.1. All changes to the database are made in transaction and time and effort was spent on making sure the data in the database did not get corrupted. 4. A property is a key that is a string and a value.1. Since the data is in a graph structure there was no need to think of any other structure for storing the data.2 save all data in the return structure 3. Relationships are set both ways so between two nodes there are two relationships with different types. There is a big hurdle to get over in order to do things nicely and efficiently.2 else (the C is different meaning an inconsistent tree) 2.2. since this was the database most familiar from previous experience.1 set the return structure as inconsistent 3. One problem with PostgreSQL and other SQL databases is that the programmer needs to be good at SQL to be able to handle writing the queries. A relationship can also have several properties just like the nodes. To index the nodes this solution uses the LucenIndexService that is closely integrated in the database but not a part of it.2 else (the previous a is consistent) 3.2. making sure that only nodes in the right direction gets traversed. setting up tables and similar things.2. The amount of code needed to handle calls to the database. All attributes in a node are stored as properties and the relationships are set as the nodes get entered into the database. In the end this database proved to be the hardest and most time consuming to implement. a string or an array of primitives or strings. This is not intended as a key-value store and therefore indexing is not a priority.2 Neo4j Neo4j is a graph database and as such it uses nodes and vertices to store data. There is no indexing in the graph engine but this semi built in index service uses a Lucene as backend and is as close as it gets to being an integrated index. Almost all exception handling is simply printing an error message on stderr and moving on or returning false since there is no use spending time implementing fancy error handling for something that may be discarded shortly. The data is retrieved from the database by traversing the graph.1 set this a-value as inconsistent 2.1 discard all saved data 4 set this row as the previous row 4.1.2 Strengths and weaknesses The implementation of PostgreSQL was the first one. This helps with the traversing of the tree. Because the indexing is separate from the database it is possible to . These relationships must be of a specific type. exceptions and similar things is massive.4. the main way of finding the right nodes should be by traversing the graph with different algorithms.2 keep C and B nodes in a structure 3 else (this is not the same a-value as the previous row) 3. The value must be one of Javas primitive types. Neo4j 15 2.1 is the previous a inconsistent 3. A node can have several properties and several vertices or relationships with other nodes.

If such a list is found. There are some examples on the web site and a really good API for all of the classes.2 Strengths and weaknesses It was fairly easy to start implementing Neo4j. The only time nodes are removed from the database in this solution is then all data is removed for testing purposes. The implementation was finished in November of 2010 and has not been checked against the new version of the database. The index service may still return the node but it will not have the correct properties set and when sked for the value of the propery an exception will be thrown. The a-value is set as key and the C node is put in a list. 4. it is not the same object that got put in the database but it has the same information. A new object is created for every node that is returned. Then the correct node has been found the information is moved from the node to the Java object that gets returned.16 Chapter 4. it is possible to ask for every node that is at a maximum depth from this node and that can be accessed by the correct relationship type. As previously mentioned this is probably not the best way and a different algorithm should be considered if any more work is done on this database. The same is true for question 11. A completely missing functionality is the ability to truncate the entire database. One of the main differences is how the indexing is handled. the correct C node is found by asking the index service for the node and then asking the database for all its neighbours with the correct relationship. All nodes that are put in the database get indexed on the different properties that are needed for this. Question 12 uses Javas hash set in the same way as PostgreSQL to calculate the different sets from given sub trees. Neo4j makes this traversing very easy. Question 10 gets the correct A from the index service and then simply traverses the sub tree and returns the nodes.1 The questions The first nine questions are handled by the index service. 4. The first time this happened it was a somewhat hard error to find. the sub tree is inconsistent. The consistency check really uses the graph properties of this database. For the most cases a sub tree will be consistent and this should be faster than BerkeleyDB for those cases since it really uses the nature of the graph and only when it is needed. To get the right B nodes all B nodes are examined and the ones with correct A are stored in the return structure. When all nodes are traversed the program begins to go through the hash table and searching for a-values that have more than one value in the list. The database said that the property was not set but the problem was that the node was still indexed by the property and removed from the database. It begins by making a depth first search with a maximum depth of two. The solutions remove a node from the database and still have it indexed. It is vital that all indices are removed when a node is removed from the database. perform the tests and then remove all data to make the database clean for the next test. The new version 1. The more complex questions use the graph structure of Neo4j to return the correct nodes.2. This is very easy in both . This solution uses version 1. if an index was not removed it showed in a really strange behaviour and the root cause was hard to find. The only major problem was described above.2. Since this was a test there was a need to store data. For all C nodes it saved the a-value and the C node in a hash table. If there is any future work done on this solution one of the first steps should be integrating the new way of indexing. More information on this can be found on Neo4js web page [11].2 came out in December 2010.1 of Neo4j.

@SecondaryKey(relate=ONE_TO_MANY) String[] email. When returning an object from the database . There exist programs that allows for a graphical presentation of the data in the database but none were tested by the author of this thesis.3 Berkely DB BerkeleyDB is a key-value store that is originally written in C++ but now has a completely rewritten version in Java. Neo4j requires really fast discs or huge amounts of memory to work well. @SecondaryKey(relate=MANY_TO_MANY) String[] family. It uses annotation to set the class as persistent or as an entity class and the members of the class that are primary. Berkeley stores any java-class that is set to be persistent. Berkely DB 17 PostgreSQL and BerkeleyDB but no easy solution was found for Neo4j.1 to 1. If an instance may have many but no other instance may have any of the same the relation type is ONE TO MANY and if an instance can have many that it shares with other the relation type is MANY TO MANY. 4.and secondary key. A graph is easy to understand and most data with lots of relationships are described as a graph. The Linux machine that was used in the developing of this thesis had some real problems with speed. BerkeleyDB is owned by Oracle since 2006. see the API [6]. @SecondaryKey(relate=ONE_TO_ONE) Int ssn. @Entity class ExampleClass { @PrimaryKey long id. Neo4j is still young and the changing of indexing from version 1.4. } ONE TO ONE says that the value is unique for every instance in the database. Because the data is organized as a graph there are several graph algorithms that can be used to solve various problems. The secondary keys have of four different ways of relating to other instances of the same class.3. Since BerkeleyDB require all objects to be stored to be set as persistent the information have to be moved from the original object coming in to a Berkeley object that looks the same except for the Berkeley specific annotations. MANY TO ONE means that this instance only has one but share that with several other instances of this class. A primary key is of this type but it is unusual for secondary keys. For more information on implementation details. An example will clarify this.2 shows that big changes are still being made. @SecondaryKey(relate=MANY_TO_ONE) String Name. Both PostgreSQL and BerkeleyDB are older and more mature products. The test runs was done on solid state drive and Neo4j needs better hardware for the program than the other two databases.

In Berkeley each node will get their own copy of this property and when returned the nodes will have different but identical copies of this property. The solutions the reverse is done to make sure the correct type of object gets returned. If a Berkeley DB object could be returned the search methods would consist of only one line of code. see Figure 4. It then needs to do the same for all C nodes to get all D nodes.1 The questions As with the others the first nine questions were easy then the indexing part was understood. Information on with B nodes a C node belongs to is only stored in the B nodes and therefore it must be search in the B nodes. If a get from the database is costly and there are lots of C nodes that belong to different B nodes in the same sub tree this approach will be expensive.2 there is a shared property between the nodes. . In the other two there is also information on how to get up the tree but this information does not exist in Berkeley DB.18 Chapter 4. In Figure 3. The difference here is in the speed of the initial search since it is done twice. Figure 4. In Berkeley DB this would be much harder since there is no link from a C node to its B nodes and on to the A node to make sure only the correct B nodes gets returned.1: An example of how a shared property gets duplicated in Berkeley DB 4. When doing this some information about relationships between the nodes are lost. Returning a sub tree needs the database to first get the right A node then looping all B nodes. This means that several nodes may get visited more than once and that is not optimal. The search is not hard. the id of the C nodes is set to be a secondary index and the search is simple but possibly time consuming.1. The inconsistency check was hard to do in Berkley DB. The difference between two sub trees is handled in much the same way as with the other databases. But if there are only a few of these nodes it will cost more to keep track of which have already been explored than to let them get explored once more. In Neo4j there was a possibility to store only the C nodes and the a-value and then get the information if the sub tree is inconsistent. getting the right node from database and finding all C nodes it connects to. Therefore this solution uses the naive approach and lets the same C node get explored several times.3. Getting down the tree is fairly easy with Berkeley DB as with both the other databases.

Berkely DB 19 The supervisor at Tieto. Anders Martinsson. Those tests were only to test the functionality but even then it was a clear difference in the speed of the test program.2 Strengths and weaknesses This was a little bit harder than Neo4j to get started on the implementation but after the initial hurdle was cleared there were few problems with getting the code to work. In Neo4j only the a-value and its corresponding C node is saved but there it is possible to retrieve the information about the B nodes without having to search the whole tree again. Then first tested on the developing machine the first reaction was that it was really fast. Then the initial search is done it is simply a matter of looking at the length of each of the inner hashtables to see if any of them are of greater length than one. List<String>>> to keep track of all nodes visited so far. then that a-value is in more than one C node and the tree is inconsistent. If so.4. . made a solution for his Hashtable and that solution seemed to be a good approach: it stores all the information needed as it makes a depth first search of the sub tree. The author of this paper has tried to find some graphical program to view the data in the database and handle it manually.3. 4. The outer hashtable have the a-value as key and a hashtable as the value. In Berkeley DB this is not possible so all information needed to be saved as the initial search proceeded.3. No such program has been found but it would be good if it existed. The inner hashtable have the C node for key and then a list of B nodes for value. The hashtable has the structure Hashtable<String. Hashtable<String.

20 Chapter 4. The solutions .

Neo4j had 512 tests and PostgreSQL had 256 tests per question. The fact that the total time for running the entire test set was so high that it could not be completed for both Neo4j and PostgreSQL is very telling of which database is faster for the large amount of data. The server times will not be presented in total here. Neo4j needs almost 25 second but PostgreSQL needs as much as 115 seconds or almost 2 minutes. For that amount of data there can be no other explanation as to why the cost is so much higher. Neither Neo4j nor Berkeley DB can keep all the information in memory and need to read from disc. Note that the scale in the x-axis is logarithmic and not linear. the difference between two sub-trees and question 10.Chapter 5 Results The test program was developed by Anders Martinsson. This seems to affect Neo4j more than Berkeley DB. It can be seen in Figure 5.1(b) that PostgreSQL has a high overhead cost since it needs to call an external database. All test runs were done by him on his computer. only the mean. When 21 . In total there were almost 500 000 times to analyse at the end of all test runs. 10% and 100%. All times are in tables in Appendix A. Time was measured at both client and server. the client measured the wall clock time for all test runs in milliseconds and the server each questions time in nanoseconds. my supervisor at Tieto. median and a trimmed mean will be presented. The test program was developed at the same time as the databases and to test it Anders designed a Hash table to handle the data. Neo4j struggles with some of the questions when it comes to 100% of the data but Berkeley DB is still quite fast. One other interesting thing that is obvious from these graphs is that the more complex questions that is the hardest seems to be question 12. If the client times are divided by the number of test runs Berkeley DB completes query 12 in less than 5 seconds.1%. The test was run 2048 times for each question except for Neo4j and PortgreSQL at 100% because they took so long it was not possible to let them run that many tests.1(a) and 5. returning a sub tree of A. even though they both keep their data on the SSD. 1%. 8 to give an accurate picture for comparison. The impact of this overhead should decrease as the amount of data increases. This is maybe the most important result of them all. This is not a persistent database but for comparison reasons test runs were done with this as well for the three smaller data sets. Note that the listings of client times for 100% have the numbers for Neo4j and PostgreSQL are multiplied with 4 resp. 0. The trimmed mean has 5% cut of at each end to get rid of any extreme values. Even if this is a question asked once a day 2 minutes is a very long time to wait for an answer. First a look at the client times for the different questions at the different percentage levels. The test runs are made in four different percentages of the data.

On the server side the times plotted are the trimmed means because they are generally somewhere in between the mean and median. If the original data contains 20 unique value of the attribute in question. it drops to 0. One of the main reasons for this is probably the speed of the solid state drive.5 x 10 5 (b) 1 % of the data. especially for Neo4j. 8000 7000 6000 Time in seconds 5000 4000 3000 2000 0.22 Chapter 5. With a slower hard drive this would probably not be possible. For 100% the time is still only slightly more than double the time for getting one sub tree. For question 9 it appears that the hash table is the slowest.2 the client times for Neo4j.1: Total time for the client. In Figure 5. comparing the times.2 for 1% and is rounded to 1. except for Neo4j which has a top at 100% when the rest of them actually go down in time.5 1000 0 0 Time in seconds PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 2. The graphs are almost the same.5 1 0 2 4 6 8 Question number 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 Question number 10 12 14 (c) 10 % of the data. but only just. for 10% of the data the time is almost double which means that the time spend calculating the sets is almost nothing compared to the time of getting the sub trees. PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB 2 1. Figure 5. There are some explanations for this but the most likely is that the data scales badly for this example. PostgreSQL is the slowest for almost every question. That means that a much larger portion of the data is returned . A look at question 7 in Figure 5. Results 900 800 700 600 Time in seconds 500 400 300 200 Time in seconds PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 3000 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 100 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 Question number 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 Question number 10 12 14 (a) 0.5 and the results are very interesting. One interesting fact is that Berkeley DB and Neo4j almost can keep up with the Hash table. Berkeley DB and the Hash table are plotted for 10% of the data. (d) 100 % of the data. The maximum seems to be when only 1% of the data is tested.1 % of the data. One thing that becomes apparent from these Figures is that some of the simple questions are not so simple after all.

2: Client times for 10% of the data without PostgreSQL than for 10%. .23 800 700 600 Time in seconds 500 400 300 200 100 0 Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 0 2 4 6 8 Question number 10 12 14 Figure 5. A closer look at the exact behaviour of the data and the databases for this question would be interresting but it probably does not influence the final result.

4 0.8 0.5 2 60 1.1 0. Results 0.3 1. 3.24 Chapter 5. 4 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 120 (b) 1 % of the data.3: Total time for the server.2 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 Question number 10 12 14 (a) 0.25 Time in seconds Time in seconds 0 2 4 6 8 Question number 10 12 14 1 0.5 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 Question number 10 12 14 (c) 10 % of the data.4 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 0.5 40 1 20 0.2 0. Figure 5.35 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 1.6 0.1 % of the data.5 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB 100 3 80 Time in seconds Time in seconds 0 2 4 6 8 Question number 10 12 14 2. .05 0.2 0.15 0. (d) 100 % of the data.

1% Time in seconds PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0.1% PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table (d) Question 4 1% Amount of data 10% 100% 1% Amount of data 10% 100% (e) Question 5 (f) Question 6 Figure 5.1% 0 0.1% 1% Amount of data 10% 100% 0 0.1% 1% Amount of data 10% 100% (a) Question 1 200 180 160 140 Time in seconds 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.4: Client times for question 1-6 .25 1200 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 1200 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 1000 1000 800 Time in seconds Time in seconds 1% Amount of data 10% 100% 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 0.1% Time in seconds PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 1200 (b) Question 2 1000 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 800 600 400 200 1% Amount of data 10% 100% (c) Question 3 1800 1600 1400 1200 Time in seconds 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0.

26 Chapter 5. Results 3000 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 2500 2000 Time in seconds 1500 1000 500 0 0.1% 1% Amount of data 10% 100% Figure 5.5: Total time for the client for question 7 at different amounts of data .

1% 1% Amount of data 10% 100% 0 0.1% 0 0.6: Client times for question 8-13 .1% 1% Amount of data 10% 100% (e) Question 12 (f) Question 13 Figure 5.1% 1% Amount of data 10% 100% (a) Question 8 12 x 10 4 (b) Question 9 60 10 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 50 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 8 Time in seconds Time in seconds 1% Amount of data 10% 100% 40 6 30 4 20 2 10 0 0.1% 1% Amount of data 10% 100% (c) Question 10 2.5 500 0 0.5 Time in seconds 1% Amount of data 10% 100% 2000 1 1500 1000 0.27 1500 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 9000 8000 7000 6000 Time in seconds 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 1000 Time in seconds 500 0 0.5 x 10 5 (d) Question 11 3500 2 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 3000 PostgreSQL Neo4J BerkeleyDB Hash table 2500 Time in seconds 1.1% 0 0.

28 Chapter 5. Results .

The real data have some properties that are excluded from this first test to make the task a little easier. Neo4j needs time to mature and become a more stable product before suits companies such as Tieto. is there any database that can handle the amount of data that Tieto have and how good can it get? To answer this question it was necessary to take a look at what architectures that exist today and find some different databases that could do the job. version 1. The results were pretty clear. A good first step would be to identify these and start implementing them as well to see if the results still hold. 6. Even though it data fits the graphical model the best Neo4j just was not fast enough to be able to use its advantage. All three were implemented as a Web service and their performance was measured. the database that is the best at handling the data is Berkeley DB. This was a surprising result especially that it was faster even for the more graphical questions. The relational database was based on the fact that is already existed in the company and that it is one of the fastest relational databases available. There is also the problem with the maturity of the product. Even though there exist a solution today it is not optimal and at the rate the data is growing Tieto may find themselves in trouble a lot faster than they anticipate. 29 .1 half a year later and in December of 2010 yet another version. A third and completely different database was needed and Berkeley DB is a key value store that had all the qualities. Based on the nature of the data it became clear that one should be a graph database and Neo4j was chosen because it considered to be one of the best on the market. even for the questions that are closely connected to the graphical aspect of the data. The first version of Neo4j was released in February of 2010.1 Future work The results are promising and there is definitely worth a continued development of the Berkeley DB part of the solution.Chapter 6 Conclusions In this paper a question was asked.

30 Chapter 6. Conclusions .

31 .Chapter 7 Acknowledgements I would like to start by thanking my supervisor at Tieto. I also thank everyone at Tietos office in Ume˚ for making my workday a a pleasant time. a Ola ˚gren. Anders Martinsson for all his support and help. I thank internal supervisor at the department of Computing Science at Ume˚ Universitet. A Last but not least I thank my husband for everything he has done to support me throwout the entire master thesis project. Without him this master thesis would not have existed since the whole thing was his idea.

Acknowledgements .32 Chapter 7.

[10] Mike Stonebraker. [12] The Apache Software Foundation. Alex Pilchin. Dynamo: Amazon’s highly available key-value store. 6(3). Sam Madden. 15(4). http://www. Pat O’Neil. Partition-Tolerant Web Services. August 18 2010. http://www. Deniz Hastorun.org/. 2008. and Werner Vogels. Available. In Proc. Swaminathan Sivasubramanian. [14] Wikipedia. [8] Hibernating Rhinos.com/. Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Very Large Databases.wikipedia. [9] Michael Stonebraker. Gunavardhan Kakulapati.7/html/java/. Amerson Lin. [7] Dan Pritchett. database. http://neo4j. Daniel J. http://en. The End of an Architectural Era (It’s Time for a Complete Rewrite). http://ravendb. [6] Oracle. Alex Rasin. Madan Jampani.apache. The Transaction Concept: Virtues and Limitations. August 18 2010. Raven DB. Miguel Ferreira. August 18 2010. 1983. Turing award.org/. December 6 2010.org/. [2] Giuseppe DeCandia. and Stan Zdonik. C-Store: A Column-oriented DBMS. Edmond Lau.mongodb. Mongodb. Mitch Cherniack. and Pat Helland. August 18 2010. http://couchdb. Daniel J. Queue. 2007. Xuedong Chen. 41:205–220. BASE: An Acid Alternative. Stavros Harizopoulos. Abadi. Avinash Lakshman. Nabil Hachem.net/. 2005.systomath. SOSP.References [1] 10Gen. Brewer’s Conjecture and the Feasibility of Consistent. The A CouchDB distributed Project.org/wiki/Turing Award. Computing Surveys. Samuel Madden. [3] Seth Gilbert and Nancy Lynch. 2007. the graph database. http://project-voldemort. [13] Project Voldemort. 33 . 33. [11] Neo Technology. pages 553–564. 2002. VLDB. Principles of transaction-oriented database recovery. December 6 2010. October 5 2010. Peter Vosshall. Elizabeth O’Neil. [5] Theo Haerder and Andreas Reuter.com/doc/BerkeleyDb-4. VLDB ’07. 1981. Nga Tran. [4] Jim Gray. Neo4J. Project Voldemort. ACM SIGACT News. Adam Batkin. Abadi.

34 REFERENCES .

59 27.3281 0.3765 0.06893 0.22 3.52 59.5257 0.09506 median 0.4 326. A.1647 0.38 0.648 8.06033 2.0648 3.3518 0.6 27.1657 0.909 18.4028 0.575 0.9 12.722 PostgreSQL trim median 13.0664 0.05806 0.04666 0.297 16.6 0.713 mean 0.74 32.1 Server times mean 13.6 25.29 3.7051 0.7035 81.1% of the data.29 15.04629 3.18 1.457 18.2 326 27.4 326.7852 0.563 0.114 0.5086 0.421 0.1: The server times for 0.4973 0.1964 0.98 25.04722 3.83 29.3445 Berkeley DB trim median 0.1 28.619 0.17 5.134 8.408 59.2868 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Table A. 35 .Appendix A Data from test runs Here is the raw data from the test runs.41 12.67 1.679 8.89 28.41 298.36 0.285 5.5271 0.288 59.7 297.14 12.8853 0.403 9.978 16.16 24. Time in milliseconds.09073 0.1078 0.49 68.43 53.09009 0.05725 0.53 0.06052 3.3003 0.4977 0.3681 0.36 9.09877 Neo4j trim 0.05615 0.3437 0.8656 0.704 18.1363 0.2815 0.813 0.709 8. The server times are rounded to 4 significant digits.715 1.7952 0.9 27.5486 0.74 27.53 29.7108 82.13 32.09334 mean 0.97 32.1 53.37 12.346 0.2452 0.09068 0.36 297.06775 0.4147 0.86 5. The values for the Hash table did not fit in the table with the others and therefore it is in its own table.1889 0.47 3.8562 0.37 53.295 2.

77 113.4 639.09 25.9945 37.8 187.91 17.9 5.05767 0.2 1096 1098 566.1131 0.06573 3.239 5.0218 3.87 159.266 319.8 0.481 74.48 21.32 0.5 85.9 3.33 1.76 1.3 54.4027 0.072 3641 27.09 65.7 1808 6.01 25.6 105.064 199.94 105.347 69.08651 9.94 120.8298 3.8 106.03178 0.692 Berkeley DB trimmean 0.833 0.676 21.04 32.08425 3.118 21.381 17.59 1. .8 375.75 61.93 30.03 179.075 17.04 64.09598 9.54 median 0.7109 0.119 0.066 1.76 65.335 3639 3637 27.06133 0.3035 mean 0.27 46.2 318.1742 119.1761 5.237 mean 0.3 631. Time in milliseconds.9983 0.2: The server times for 1% of the data.02163 3.1332 0.3 1061 1092 26.388 0.24 37.245 0.4841 0.08418 0.7 159.024 4.745 21.4219 0.811 0.9 209.5 PostgreSQL trim median 61.1757 5.14 1.3 209.007 37.53 0.09 31.5 1.0554 0.7107 105.0829 0.4 1044 26.99 31.37 61.499 0.929 8.21 0.338 60.33 60.1246 0.1 161.71 1.8452 3.91 27.03206 0.016 4.6008 6.59 46.7 3.36 Chapter A.8 Table A.9761 6.418 0.11 160.206 8.1 631.3 33.51 382.47 86.37 1.2 1807 1806 6.82 39.9 113.3 0.099 0.8173 6.1032 0.8 17.95 18.187 120 3.8292 3. Data from test runs Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 mean 18.1364 0.37 39.9 0.08158 0.4 1097 567.29 17.5008 1.54 61.81 74.23 46.1 Berkeley DB trim median 0.49 27.734 14.2 3.4153 0.3028 median 0. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 mean 61.795 14.03149 0.1335 0.072 200.44 179.1775 5.02161 3.37 36.4 201.05541 0.429 3.57 39.9 163.037 6.015 21.1 161.13 25.004 21.08234 3.3 3.62 61.08166 0.9 209.42 114.2 5.807 0.23 32.48 mean 0.1026 0.434 PostgreSQL trim median 18.136 Table A.668 15.9 0.89 105.238 median 0.4 0.3: The server times for 10% of the data. Time in milliseconds.368 Neo4j trim 0.17 32.225 319.267 17.88 36.06115 0.06575 3.4238 0.1559 120.96 31.05555 0.1218 0.21 1.4 1.3105 Neo4j trim 0.22 1.15 29.97 8.69 3.9066 74.429 mean 0.76 381.3 0.7133 107.4963 0.1265 0.9 0.0664 3.08 0.91 0.7 567.018 4.5108 0.62 37.58 18.1018 9.2 49.

147 0.233 0.93 394.1.5432 0.5 291 249.8 55.008475 0.366 0.008829 0.56 0.4: The server times for 100% of the data.7 462.03593 1.5593 0.8 1134 1133 Table A.006071 1.01792 0.6278 0.242 0. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 mean 0.1 19.5 1136 Berkeley DB trim median 1.366 0.08085 1% trim 0.0408 0.62 11. Time in milliseconds.006902 1.03216 0.001138 0. Time in milliseconds.05229 0.37 8.5 495.001569 0.03121 0.8914 10% trim 0.21 36.5411 0.01769 0.301 3.0167 mean 0.001467 0.5779 21.261 0.001138 0. .5589 21.001458 0.001573 0.8 mean 55.0187 0.05151 0.07295 median 0.14 18.001897 0.009643 0.5: The server times for the hash table.14 11.05172 0.004174 0.008697 0.A.5044 0.0371 0. Server times 37 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 mean 501.14 157.0406 0.7 93.6 495.001518 0.001518 0.8 558.648 442.03529 0.3 163.332 0.56 9.7 492.72 4059 52980 21.5 77.1% trim 0.8 731.99 740.87 14.007546 1.05 4058 4058 52890 52660 18.832 22540 22750 1505 1489 mean 1.008888 0.9 371.1925 0.06412 mean 0.7 410.7 4096 4092 524.01404 0.02125 0.4 25.97 22.88 153 22.9 490.05122 0.65 111900 112200 373.5 24.02483 1.8829 median 0.9 338.1226 0.005312 0.001744 0.00117 0.005718 0.09 22.2556 0.0172 median 0.4 693.004694 0.302 5.11 262.38 17.04063 0.7 19.293 0.631 0.07 378 3.7 761.009106 0.114 0.4 4075 584.95 14.02186 0.1872 0.00142 0.001521 0.009677 0.5418 0.239 0.001185 0.7 17.8852 Table A.1217 0.97 0.5 599.89 562.001518 0.004403 0.896 0.269 5.00144 0.5 357.37 353.03555 0.02497 1.006041 0.6 2144 2135 462.8 2153 463.4637 0.01621 0.2 8473 8559 12.009106 0.02147 0.6003 0.01608 0.91 740.001518 0.3 PostgreSQL trim median 492.001897 0.1213 0.1867 0.134 0.6377 0.6182 11.001157 0.2 84.008618 0.87 90.12 8.22 46.01594 0.007589 0.05084 0.71 8455 16 22320 1540 Neo4j trim median 17.9 697.001518 0.03602 1.001787 0.6575 11.644 504.8 193 3.03605 1.794 63.55 0.03111 0.05061 0.02466 1.001719 0.001779 0.365 0.2 57.001579 0.669 5.008348 0.6 495.001531 0.001189 0.2831 0.008419 0.53 563.001563 0.6 747.65 112400 374.95 32.

147 37.217 1.891 Neo4j 1.743 45.02 152. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 PostgreSQL 29.962 0.8 457 1491 2754 57.958 3.776 0.91 63.7 11.561 6.84 37.52 83.233 1.62 182.377 31.889 5.745 0.94 7.54 198.431 7.35 139.6: Client times for all test runs at 0.004 1.266 4.645 1.357 0.7: Client times for all test runs at 1%.59 Hash table 1.7 285.1 3.195 Berkeley DB 2. PostgreSQL 39.7 175.8 350.31 1.29 181.6 263.239 0.57 0. Data from test runs A.006 Table A.983 0.065 0.58 698.383 1.38 Chapter A.872 31.84 127.192 242.038 67 19.7 641.66 3.502 1.2 63.2 215.952 30.485 Berkeley DB 1.33 73.9 61.52 Neo4j 2. Time in seconds.92 139.837 39.6 10.984 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Table A.28 0.1 4.455 1.83 Hash table 1. .142 38.7 3.16 11.296 0.007 0.53 8.221 1.6 905.75 26.341 5.687 23.15 876.2 Client times Here are the times recordeed by the server in seconds.1%.875 9.5 7.22 0.6 268.42 74. Neo4j and PostgreSQLs times are multiplied with appropriate scalar to give a time for comparison.3 3.956 63.8 4.7 262.86 1.59 182.9 133. This is the total time for 2048 test runs.402 3.74 2. Time in seconds.722 23.72 2.22 8.8 197.9 97.7 791.674 4.4 75.397 32.

1 838.2 334.1 0.51 154. Time in seconds.14 7.44 9654 2349 Table A. Client times 39 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 PostgreSQL 127.34 235200 789. .38 2.127 2.7 428.1 193.533 53.A.891 400.143 7.67 3758 52.7 Neo4j 116.5 9.794 496.6 8604 1212 1423 201. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 PostgreSQL 1032 1018 48.262 31.437 Table A.478 436.273 26.68 1181 1710 4659 961.405 762.8: Client times for all test runs at 10%.56 198.2 481.2 114.3 4.2.885 69.5 254.6 120.9 126.9: Client times for all test runs at 100%.619 18. Time in seconds.9 41.12 204.14 328.1 19970 35.6 8322 111000 47.628 1.7 236.4 2.36 7932 58.6 2.193 0.457 0.07 246.1 844.38 50860 3186 Berkeley DB 4.37 494.62 9.1 68.96 193 360.7 Hash table 1.9 3.006 41.998 1.3 1.8 78.8 574.9 3.865 1.041 9.98 Neo4j 2.5 2494 1270 113 791 3940 13.899 Berkeley DB 1.874 661.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful