Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 234 references

Survey: On the Landscape of Graph Databases

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A 46-feature comparison of over 50 graph database systems shows which capabilities are common and which are rare.

desk verdict Broad and useful survey, but the feature matrix is a July 2023 snapshot presented as current, which needs fixing before it can serve as a reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24758 v4 pith:7XEIAN7W submitted 2025-05-30 cs.DB cs.DC

Miguel E. Coimbra , Lucie Svitáková , Domagoj Vrgoč , Alexandre P. Francisco , Luís Veiga This is my paper
classification cs.DBcs.DC
keywords graphdatabasespropertymodelRDFquerylanguagesGQLSQL/PGQstoragearchitecturesfeaturecomparison
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish a current, feature-level picture of the graph database ecosystem: which systems exist, how they store graphs, what query languages they speak, and which capabilities are actually common. It evaluates dozens of systems against forty-six features grouped into Product, Database, and Data dimensions, scoring each feature on a 0-to-1 scale using public documentation and scientific papers. The point is to give developers and researchers a structured way to match a use case to a technology, and to show where the ecosystem as a whole is strong or weak. A sympathetic reader would take away that core capabilities like transaction support, Linux compatibility, REST APIs, and secondary indexes are now standard, while features like automatic updates, data versioning, granular locking, multiple isolation levels, and data encryption remain rare.

What carries the argument

The carrying device is a 46-feature evaluation framework divided into three dimensions: Product (adoption and deployment), Database (convenience, distribution, software development), and Data (access, consistency, control, security). Each feature is scored on a discrete 0-to-1 scale (absent, limited, partial, significant, or full support) using public documentation and scientific papers, and each dimension is summarized as a simple average per system. The resulting feature matrices and aggregate indices are what let the paper compare systems and identify which features are widely supported and which are not.

What would settle it

Choose any system the matrix scores as absent on a binary feature such as data encryption, granular locking, or automatic updates, then inspect its current official documentation or a running current release. If the feature is demonstrably present in a supported configuration, the survey's score is a false negative and that system's aggregate index is understated; a systematic re-check across all such false negatives would determine whether the reported adoption percentages shift materially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a feature-based comparison compiled from publicly available information can accurately represent the current graph database landscape and guide system choice. Beyond listing systems, it organizes the field by data model (property graphs, RDF, multi-model, and alternative models), by query language (Cypher, Gremlin, SPARQL, GQL/SQL/PGQ, GraphQL, and academic languages), and by storage architecture (unstructured, linear, non-linear, relational, and advanced compressed or shared-memory designs). Its evaluation yields aggregate scores per system in three dimensions and cross-system adoption rates per feature, showing, for example, that transaction support is fully present in 84% of systems while data encryption is fully present in only 26%.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's scores rest on the assumption that public documentation, vendor websites, and scientific papers accurately reflect each system's real capabilities, which the authors themselves note may undercount proprietary systems like TAO and ByteGraph whose features can be kept as corporate secrets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Decision-makers can use the 46-feature matrix as a checklist to shortlist systems by the capabilities their use case actually requires.
  • The survey identifies features the ecosystem treats as table stakes, such as transactions, Linux support, REST APIs, and secondary indexes, versus differentiators like data versioning, granular locking, multiple isolation levels, and data encryption.
  • The recent GQL and SQL/PGQ standards are presented as a convergence point, with Oracle Database 23ai cited as the first commercial SQL/PGQ system and several engines already claiming partial GQL coverage.
  • The storage-architecture taxonomy, spanning BLOB-based, linear, non-linear, relational, succinct, and shared-memory designs, gives system designers a map of the graph-native storage design space.
  • The four distributed transaction challenges identified in the survey frame why newer systems adopt decentralized or RDMA-based designs rather than traditional centralized coordination.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The scores are a snapshot tied to documentation available at review time, so a system's aggregate index could shift if vendors publish previously internal capabilities; the matrix is best treated as an updatable baseline rather than a permanent ranking.
  • Because the survey deliberately excludes empirical benchmarks, its feature comparison could be combined with standardized workload measurements to separate claims of supporting a feature from demonstrated performance at that feature.
  • The standardization of GQL and SQL/PGQ is likely to compress the diversity of proprietary query languages over the next few years, and the survey's language taxonomy could serve as a baseline for tracking that convergence.
  • The finding that security and versioning features are rare suggests an opening for vendors and open-source projects to differentiate, with a testable expectation that encryption, granular locking, and data versioning become more common defaults in the next wave of graph databases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This survey paper reviews the graph database landscape. It introduces graph data models (property graphs, RDF, and hybrids), surveys graph query languages (Cypher, GQL, SQL/PGQ, Gremlin, SPARQL, GraphQL, and academic proposals), and describes storage architectures ranging from unstructured BLOB stores to succinct and shared-memory designs. The core contribution is a feature-based comparison of 46 features across 51 graph database systems (Section 3.2), aggregated into Product, Database, and Data dimension indices, followed by an adoption analysis in Section 3.3 and a related-work survey in Section 4. The paper claims to provide a thorough and recent survey that can guide developers and researchers in choosing graph database technologies.

Significance. If the feature matrix and aggregate indices were current and methodologically sound, this would be a useful reference for practitioners and researchers: the feature set is broad, the scoring rubric is explicit, and the GitHub repository provides reproducibility. The paper also covers several systems rarely compared in prior surveys, including research prototypes and industry systems such as ByteGraph, G-Tran, LiveGraph, and ZipG. However, the central value depends on the feature scores accurately reflecting current system capabilities, and that claim is currently undermined by the July 2023 scoring cutoff, undocumented system-selection criteria, and heterogeneous denominators in the aggregate statistics. These issues are fixable, but they affect the paper's main contribution as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 15; Abstract; Section 3.3] The feature scoring is anchored to July 2023, while the paper is dated February 2026 and claims to analyze 'recent advancements' and to provide a 'comprehensive' and current survey. In Table 15, 'Active development' is scored by updates 'within three months before July 2023', and 'Trendiness' is measured over 'July 2022 - July 2023'. The abstract and Section 3.3 present the resulting percentages (e.g., 60.78% active development, 56.86% open source) as current ecosystem facts. This mismatch is load-bearing because the field changed materially after the cutoff: GQL was published in 2024, several systems cited in Section 2.2 (Oracle 23ai, DuckPGQ, PostgreSQL, Google Spanner Graph) added SQL/PGQ or GQL support, and maintenance statuses have shifted. The authors disclose the cutoff, but disclosure does not cure the inconsistency with the paper's stated recency. I request either (a) re-collecting the feature scores as of a stated 2025/2026 date and updating Tables 1-14, or (b) explicitly reframing the entire feature comparison and all aggregate claims as a historical snapshot 'as of July 2023' and revising the abstract and Section 3.3 accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.2, Sections 3.2.1-3.2.4, Tables 9-10] The survey does not state inclusion or exclusion criteria for the systems it scores, despite the Introduction claiming an 'exhaustive list' of systems. More concretely, some scored entries are explicitly not graph databases: KatanaGraph is described as 'not a graph database in itself' (Section 3.2.1), and ZipG is described as lacking 'traits of a graph database such as transaction support, replication, graphical user interfaces or graph query languages' (Section 3.2.1). These systems nevertheless appear in the feature tables and appear to contribute to the aggregate percentages in Tables 13-14. Including non-DBMS systems in the denominator biases the reported feature-adoption rates downward and weakens the comparison's validity. The paper should either apply a clear inclusion criterion (e.g., a graph database management system or graph store with a public implementation), exclude such systems from the aggregate statistics, or analyze them in a separate category.
  3. [Tables 13-14, Section 3.3] The percentages in Tables 13-14 are computed over different denominators without reporting sample sizes. For example, 60.78% corresponds to 31/51, 55.17% to 32/58, and 51.22% to 21/41; similar discrepancies appear across rows. Section 3.3 uses these percentages to make 'majority of systems' and 'features of less interest' claims, but without knowing the effective N per feature or how missing values were handled, the comparisons are not reliable. Please report the denominator for each row and specify how 'no information' or 'not applicable' cases are treated in the aggregate indices.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Section 3.3] The paper acknowledges that 'the evaluation is based on information available to public and on scientific papers, if present,' and that proprietary databases may have more features than publicly reported. This is a serious limitation for the interpretation in Section 3.3, where low scores are attributed to features being 'not essential to provide, or more difficult to implement by most of the community.' For proprietary systems, an absent feature score can be a false negative caused by lack of public documentation, not by absence of the feature. The paper should label the scores as 'reported capabilities' and soften the interpretive language, or provide a sensitivity analysis for the subset of open-source systems where the source code can independently verify the scores.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 15] The Query Language row contains a typo: 'Socre 1 if' should read 'Score 1 if'. Also, given that Section 2.2 discusses the ISO GQL standard released in 2024, the definition of a 'widely accepted query language' should be updated to mention GQL and SQL/PGQ rather than only 'Cypher/Gremlin or any other widely accepted query language'.
  2. [Section 3.3, paragraph on features at most partially supported] The text 'Reactive Multi-database (64.0%)' appears to conflate two separate features; 'Reactive programming' belongs to the Database dimension (Table 13) and 'Multi-database' belongs to the Data dimension (Table 14). Please list them separately.
  3. [Table 15] There are minor wording and spelling issues: 'accross' should be 'across' in Cluster Re-balancing, and 'the last 6 month before July 2023' should be 'the last 6 months before July 2023' in Active development.
  4. [Section 3.2.3, MillenniumDB description] The text 'showing some perfomance benefits' contains a typo: 'perfomance' should be 'performance'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No substantial circularity: the survey's feature scores are observational codings from public documentation, and the aggregate indices are simple averages of those codings, not fitted predictions or self-referential derivations.

full rationale

This paper is a survey, not a derivation. Its central quantitative outputs are the per-feature scores in Tables 1-12 and the aggregate percentages in Section 3.3. The scoring procedure is explicitly stated as an independent coding of externally observable information: 'the evaluation is based on information available to public and on scientific papers, if present.' Each feature has a fixed rubric (Table 15), and the aggregate indices are defined as 'a simple average of all the underlying numerical values of feature scores.' No conclusion is used to define its own evidence, no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction, and no result is forced by a self-citation chain. The only self-citations are to the authors' previous work on compressed dynamic graph representations (refs. 106 and 108), cited as examples of compression techniques in the storage-architecture discussion, and a co-authored system description of MillenniumDB; none of these carries the load of the survey's feature matrix or aggregate findings. The skeptic's concern about the July 2023 evaluation cutoff is a correctness or currency issue, not a circularity issue: it concerns whether the observational codings are up to date, not whether they are derived from the conclusions. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on hand-coded feature scores and on the reliability of public information about dozens of systems. No new entities or formal axioms are proposed.

free parameters (1)
  • Feature scores (46 features per system) = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, or 1
    Hand-assigned by the authors from public documentation and vendor claims; the aggregate Product, Database, and Data indices are simple averages of these values, so the survey's comparative conclusions depend on these hand-chosen codings.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Public documentation, websites, and vendor statements accurately reflect actual system capabilities
    Stated in Section 3.2: the evaluation is based on information available to the public; proprietary systems may hide features, so negative scores may be false negatives.
  • ad hoc to paper The 46 features selected in cooperation with industry are the relevant dimensions for comparing graph databases
    The feature set is introduced in Section 3.2 without a formal selection methodology or a comparison against feature sets used in prior surveys.
  • standard math Standard database background, including property graphs, RDF, B-trees, CSR, and MVCC, is reliable as summarized
    Background material in Sections 2 and 2.3 draws on established literature; no novel formalism is introduced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Survey: On the Landscape of Graph Databases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7XEIAN7W

@misc{pith2026250524758,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Survey: On the Landscape of Graph Databases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7XEIAN7W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24758}
}
read the original abstract

Graph databases have become essential tools for managing complex and interconnected data, which is common in areas like social networks, bioinformatics, and recommendation systems. Unlike traditional relational databases, graph databases offer a more natural way to model and query intricate relationships, making them particularly effective for applications that demand flexibility and efficiency in handling interconnected data. Despite their increasing use, graph databases face notable challenges. One significant issue is the irregular nature of graph data, often marked by structural sparsity, such as in its adjacency matrix representation, which can lead to inefficiencies in data read and write operations. Other obstacles include the high computational demands of traversal-based queries, especially within large-scale networks, and complexities in managing transactions in distributed graph environments. Additionally, the reliance on traditional centralized architectures limits the scalability of Online Transaction Processing (OLTP), creating bottlenecks due to contention, CPU overhead, and network bandwidth constraints. This paper presents a thorough survey of graph databases. It begins by examining property models, query languages, and storage architectures, outlining the foundational aspects that users and developers typically engage with. Following this, it provides a detailed analysis of recent advancements in graph database technologies, evaluating these in the context of key aspects such as architecture, deployment, usage, and development, which collectively define the capabilities of graph database solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24758 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the property graph model, inspired by the memory of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

234 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Knowledge graphs

    Gutierrez C, Sequeda JF. Knowledge graphs. Commun ACM. 2021 feb;64(3):96–104. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/3418294

    work page doi:10.1145/3418294 2021

  2. [2]

    The Future is Big Graphs: A Community View on Graph Processing Systems

    Sakr S, Bonifati A, Voigt H, Iosup A, Ammar K, Angles R, et al. The Future is Big Graphs: A Community View on Graph Processing Systems. Commun ACM. 2021 Aug;64(9):62–71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/3434642

    doi:10.1145/3434642 2021

  3. [3]

    The importance of graph databases and graph learning for clinical applications

    Walke D, Micheel D, Schallert K, Muth T, Broneske D, Saake G, et al. The importance of graph databases and graph learning for clinical applications. Database. 2023 07;2024:baad045. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baad045

    work page doi:10.1093/database/baad045 2023

  4. [4]

    The World of Graph Databases from An Industry Perspective

    Tian Y. The World of Graph Databases from An Industry Perspective. SIGMOD Rec. 2023 jan;51(4):60–67. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1145/3582302.3582320

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Experimental Evaluation of Graph Databases: JanusGraph, Nebula Graph, Neo4j, and TigerGraph

    Monteiro J, Sá F, Bernardino J. Experimental Evaluation of Graph Databases: JanusGraph, Nebula Graph, Neo4j, and TigerGraph. Applied Sciences. 2023;13(9). Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/9/5770

    2023

  6. [6]

    Knowledge Graphs for the Life Sciences: Recent Developments, Challenges and Opportunities

    Chen J, Dong H, Hastings J, Jiménez-Ruiz E, López V, Monnin P, et al. Knowledge Graphs for the Life Sciences: Recent Developments, Challenges and Opportunities. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    In: A Comparative Survey of Graph Databases and Software for Social Network Analytics: The Link Prediction Perspective

    Kanakaris N, Michail D, Varlamis I. In: A Comparative Survey of Graph Databases and Software for Social Network Analytics: The Link Prediction Perspective. 1st ed. CRC Press; 2023. p. 20

    2023

  8. [8]

    A Survey on Subgraph Counting: Concepts, Algorithms, and Applications to Network Motifs and Graphlets

    Ribeiro P, Paredes P, Silva MEP, Aparicio D, Silva F. A Survey on Subgraph Counting: Concepts, Algorithms, and Applications to Network Motifs and Graphlets. ACM Comput Surv. 2021 Mar;54(2). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/3433652

    doi:10.1145/3433652 2021

Show all 234 references
  1. [9]

    A Review of Graph Databases

    Lopez-Veyna JI, Castillo-Zuñiga I, Ortiz-Garcia M. A Review of Graph Databases. In: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. vol. 576 of LNNS. Springer; 2022. First Online: 30 October 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    What is a Graph Database?; 2020

    Neo4j I. What is a Graph Database?; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]

    2020

  3. [11]

    Graph pattern matching in GQL and SQL/PGQ

    Deutsch A, Francis N, Green A, Hare K, Li B, Libkin L, et al. Graph pattern matching in GQL and SQL/PGQ. In: Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Management of Data; 2022. p. 2246–2258

    2022

  4. [12]

    The gremlin graph traversal machine and language (invited talk)

    Rodriguez MA. The gremlin graph traversal machine and language (invited talk). In: Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Database Programming Languages; 2015. p. 1–10. Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2815072.2815073

    2015

  5. [13]

    PGQL: a property graph query language

    van Rest O, Hong S, Kim J, Meng X, Chafi H. PGQL: a property graph query language. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences and Systems; 2016. p. 1–6. Available from:https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2960414.2960421

    2016

  6. [14]

    The Property Graph Database Model.; 2018

    Angles R. The Property Graph Database Model.; 2018. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2100/paper26.pdf

    2018

  7. [15]

    openCypher: New Directions in Property Graph Querying

    Green A, Junghanns M, Kießling M, Lindaaker T, Plantikow S, Selmer P. openCypher: New Directions in Property Graph Querying. In: EDBT; 2018. p. 520–523. Available from: https://dbs.uni-leipzig.de/file/opencypher.pdf

    2018

  8. [16]

    [Accessed 17-December-2025]

    Resource Description Framework (RDF); 2014. [Accessed 17-December-2025]

    2014

  9. [17]

    Multilayer graphs: a unified data model for graph databases

    Angles R, Hogan A, Lassila O, Rojas C, Schwabe D, Szekely PA, et al. Multilayer graphs: a unified data model for graph databases. In: Kalavri V, Salihoglu S, editors. GRADES-NDA ’22: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGMOD Joint International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experi...

    2022

  10. [18]

    A survey of RDF stores & SPARQL engines for querying knowledge graphs

    Ali W, Saleem M, Yao B, Hogan A, Ngomo AN. A survey of RDF stores & SPARQL engines for querying knowledge graphs. VLDB J. 2022;31(3):1–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-021-00711-3

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    A design space for RDF data representations

    Sagi T, Lissandrini M, Pedersen TB, Hose K. A design space for RDF data representations. The VLDB journal. 2022;31(2):347–373

    2022

  12. [20]

    Reifying RDF: What Works Well With Wikidata? In: Liebig T, Fokoue A, editors

    Hernández D, Hogan A, Krötzsch M. Reifying RDF: What Works Well With Wikidata? In: Liebig T, Fokoue A, editors. Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems co-located with 14th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2015)...

    2015

  13. [21]

    Graph Data Management: Fundamental Issues and Recent Developments

    Fletcher G, Hidders J, Larriba-Pey JL. Graph Data Management: Fundamental Issues and Recent Developments. Springer International Publishing; 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    MillenniumDB: An Open-Source Graph Database System

    Vrgoc D, Rojas C, Angles R, Arenas M, Arroyuelo D, Buil-Aranda C, et al. MillenniumDB: An Open-Source Graph Database System. Data Intell. 2023;5(3):560–610. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00229

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    openCypher Queries over Combined RDF and LPG Data in Amazon Neptune

    Broekema W, Elzarei M, Lassila O, López-Enríquez C, Neyman M, Schmedding F, et al. openCypher Queries over Combined RDF and LPG Data in Amazon Neptune. In: Etcheverry L, Garcia VL, Osborne F, Pernisch R, editors. Proceedings of the ISWC 2024 Posters, Demos and Industry Tracks:...

    2024

  16. [24]

    KGTK: A Toolkit for Large Knowledge Graph Manipulation and Analysis

    Ilievski F, Garijo D, Chalupsky H, Divvala NT, Yao Y, Rogers CM, et al. KGTK: A Toolkit for Large Knowledge Graph Manipulation and Analysis. In: Pan JZ, Tamma V, d’Amato C, Janowicz K, Fu B, Polleres A, et al., editors. The Semantic Web - ISWC 2020 - 19th International Semanti...

    2020

  17. [25]

    The OneGraph vision: Challenges of breaking the graph model lock-in

    Lassila O, Schmidt M, Hartig O, Bebee B, Bechberger D, Broekema W, et al. The OneGraph vision: Challenges of breaking the graph model lock-in. Semantic Web. 2023;14(1):125–134. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-223273

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    SPARQL 1.1 Query Language; 2013

    Harris S, Seaborne A. SPARQL 1.1 Query Language; 2013. W3C Recommendation. Available from: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/

    2013

  19. [27]

    Cypher: An evolving query language for property graphs

    Francis N, Green A, Guagliardo P, Libkin L, Lindaaker T, Marsault V, et al. Cypher: An evolving query language for property graphs. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data

    2018

  20. [28]

    What is openCypher?; 2018

    Neo4j I. What is openCypher?; 2018. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: http://www.opencypher.org/

    2018

  21. [29]

    ISO/IEC 39075:2024 Information technology — Database languages — GQL; 2024

    ISO. ISO/IEC 39075:2024 Information technology — Database languages — GQL; 2024. https://www.iso.org/standard/76120.html

    2024

  22. [30]

    ISO/IEC 9075-16:2023 Information technology — Database languages SQL - Part 16: Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ); 2023

    ISO. ISO/IEC 9075-16:2023 Information technology — Database languages SQL - Part 16: Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ); 2023. https://www.iso.org/standard/79473.html

    2023

  23. [31]

    Foundations of Modern Query Languages for Graph Databases

    Angles R, Arenas M, Barceló P, Hogan A, Reutter J, Vrgoč D. Foundations of Modern Query Languages for Graph Databases. ACM Comput Surv. 2017 sep;50(5). Available from:https://doi.org/10.1145/3104031

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    G-CORE: A Core for Future Graph Query Languages

    Angles R, Arenas M, Barceló P, Boncz PA, Fletcher GHL, Gutierrez C, et al. G-CORE: A Core for Future Graph Query Languages. In: SIGMOD Conference. ACM; 2018. p. 1421–1432

    2018

  25. [33]

    Graph Pattern Matching: Do We Have to Reinvent the Wheel? In: Proceedings of Workshop on GRAph Data management Experiences and Systems; 2014

    Gubichev A, Then M. Graph Pattern Matching: Do We Have to Reinvent the Wheel? In: Proceedings of Workshop on GRAph Data management Experiences and Systems; 2014. p. 1–7

    2014

  26. [34]

    openCypher - Source Code; 2020

    Horn P, Rydberg M. openCypher - Source Code; 2020. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/opencypher/

    2020

  27. [35]

    Spark: Cluster Computing with Working Sets

    Zaharia M, Chowdhury M, Franklin MJ, Shenker S, Stoica I. Spark: Cluster Computing with Working Sets. In: Proceedings of the 2Nd USENIX Conference on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing. HotCloud’10. Berkeley, CA, USA: USENIX Association; 2010. p. 10–10. Available from: http://dl.ac...

  28. [36]

    Graphflow: An active graph database

    Kankanamge C, Sahu S, Mhedbhi A, Chen J, Salihoglu S. Graphflow: An active graph database. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data; 2017. p. 1695–1698

    2017

  29. [37]

    RedisGraph GraphBLAS Enabled Graph Database

    Cailliau P, Davis T, Gadepally V, Kepner J, Lipman R, Lovitz J, et al. RedisGraph GraphBLAS Enabled Graph Database. In: 2019 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops (IPDPSW). IEEE; 2019. p. 285–286

    2019

  30. [38]

    The graph story of the SAP HANA database

    Rudolf M, Paradies M, Bornhövd C, Lehner W. The graph story of the SAP HANA database. Datenbanksysteme für Business, Technologie und Web (BTW) 2037. 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Cypher for Gremlin - Source Code; 2019

    Neo4j I. Cypher for Gremlin - Source Code; 2019. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/opencypher/cypher-for-gremlin

    2019

  32. [40]

    Cypher-based Graph Pattern Matching in Gradoop

    Junghanns M, Kießling M, Averbuch A, Petermann A, Rahm E. Cypher-based Graph Pattern Matching in Gradoop. In: Boncz PA, Larriba-Pey J, editors. Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Graph Data-management Experiences & Systems, GRADES@SIGMOD/PODS 2017, Chicago, IL,...

    2017

  33. [41]

    Ruruki - In-Memory Directed Property Graph; 2016

    Optiver. Ruruki - In-Memory Directed Property Graph; 2016. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://ruruki.readthedocs.io/en/master/readme.html#introduction-to-ruruki-in-memory-d irected-property-grap

    2016

  34. [42]

    Property Graphs in Oracle Database 23ai: The SQL/PGQ Standard; 2025

    van Rest O. Property Graphs in Oracle Database 23ai: The SQL/PGQ Standard; 2025. Available from:https: //blogs.oracle.com/database/property-graphs-in-oracle-database-23ai-the-sql-pgq-standard

    2025

  35. [43]

    SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ); 2024

    Eisentraut P. SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ); 2024. Available from:https: //www.postgresql.org/message-id/a855795d-e697-4fa5-8698-d20122126567%40eisentraut.org

    2024

  36. [44]

    DuckPGQ: Bringing SQL/PGQ to DuckDB

    Wolde Dt, Szárnyas G, Boncz P. DuckPGQ: Bringing SQL/PGQ to DuckDB. Proc VLDB Endow. 2023 Aug;16(12):4034–4037. Available from:https://doi.org/10.14778/3611540.3611614

    2023

  37. [45]

    Spanner Graph and ISO standards; 2024

    Google Spanner. Spanner Graph and ISO standards; 2024. Available from: https://docs.cloud.google.com/spanner/docs/graph/iso-standards

    2024

  38. [46]

    GQL is Here: Your Cypher Queries in a GQL World; 2024

    Malenchino V. GQL is Here: Your Cypher Queries in a GQL World; 2024. Available from: https://neo4j.com/blog/cypher-and-gql/cypher-gql-world/

    2024

  39. [47]

    Announcing NebulaGraph Enterprise v5.0 RC release: Delivering Full-Fledged GQL Support

    Nebula Graph. Announcing NebulaGraph Enterprise v5.0 RC release: Delivering Full-Fledged GQL Support

  40. [48]

    Ultipa Graph Database; 2023

    Inc U. Ultipa Graph Database; 2023. [Online, Homepage; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://www.ultipa.com/product/ultipa-graph

    2023

  41. [49]

    GQL language guide; 2025

    Microsoft Fabric. GQL language guide; 2025. Available from: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/fabric/graph/gql-language-guide

    2025

  42. [50]

    Apache TinkerPop; 2019

    Foundation TAS. Apache TinkerPop; 2019. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://tinkerpop.apache.org/

    2019

  43. [51]

    Titan: Distributed Graph Database; 2015

    Aurelius. Titan: Distributed Graph Database; 2015. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: http://titandb.io

    2015

  44. [52]

    JanusGraph: Distributed Graph Database; 2017

    JanusGraph Authors. JanusGraph: Distributed Graph Database; 2017. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://janusgraph.org/

    2017

  45. [53]

    DataStax Enterprise Graph; 2016

    DataStax, Inc . DataStax Enterprise Graph; 2016. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://docs.datastax.com/en/dse/6.8/dse-dev/datastax_enterprise/graph/graphTOC.html. Coimbraet al. Page 54 of 60

    2016

  46. [54]

    OrientDB: A NoSQL, Open Source MMDMS

    Ritter, Daniel and Dell’Aquila, Luigi and Lomakin, Andrii and Tagliaferri, Emanuele. OrientDB: A NoSQL, Open Source MMDMS. In: Proceedings of the The British International Conference on Databases 2021, London, United Kingdom, March 28, 2022. vol. 3163 of CEUR Workshop Proceedi...

    2021

  47. [55]

    A Programmatic Introduction to Neo4J

    Webber J. A Programmatic Introduction to Neo4J. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Systems, Programming, and Applications: Software for Humanity. SPLASH ’12. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2012. p. 217–218. Available from:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2384716.2384777

    2012

  48. [56]

    Objectivity/DB; 2016

    Objectivity. Objectivity/DB; 2016. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://www.objectivity.com/products/objectivitydb/

    2016

  49. [57]

    Introduction to Azure Cosmos DB

    Paz JRG. Introduction to Azure Cosmos DB. In: Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB Revealed. Springer; 2018. p. 1–23

    2018

  50. [58]

    Amazon Neptune: Graph Data Management in the Cloud.; 2018

    Bebee BR, Choi D, Gupta A, Gutmans A, Khandelwal A, Kiran Y, et al. Amazon Neptune: Graph Data Management in the Cloud.; 2018. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7d53/9db059514f6e7f1a08239031cdd517a106c6.pdf

    2018

  51. [59]

    Scaling Apache Giraph to a trillion edges

    Ching A. Scaling Apache Giraph to a trillion edges. Facebook Engineering Blog. 2013;p. 25

    2013

  52. [60]

    Spark SQL: Relational Data Processing in Spark

    Armbrust M, Xin RS, Lian C, Huai Y, Liu D, Bradley JK, et al. Spark SQL: Relational Data Processing in Spark. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. SIGMOD ’15. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2015. p. 1383–1394. Available from: http://d...

    2015

  53. [61]

    Semantics and complexity of SPARQL

    Pérez J, Arenas M, Gutierrez C. Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS). 2009;34(3):1–45

    2009

  54. [62]

    Scalable SPARQL querying of large RDF graphs

    Huang J, Abadi DJ, Ren K. Scalable SPARQL querying of large RDF graphs. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. 2011;4(11):1123–1134

    2011

  55. [63]

    S2X: graph-parallel querying of RDF with GraphX

    Schätzle A, Przyjaciel-Zablocki M, Berberich T, Lausen G. S2X: graph-parallel querying of RDF with GraphX. In: Biomedical Data Management and Graph Online Querying. Springer; 2015. p. 155–168

    2015

  56. [64]

    Efficient processing of SPARQL queries over graphframes

    Bahrami RA, Gulati J, Abulaish M. Efficient processing of SPARQL queries over graphframes. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence; 2017. p. 678–685

    2017

  57. [65]

    Virtuoso, a Hybrid RDBMS/Graph Column Store

    Erling O. Virtuoso, a Hybrid RDBMS/Graph Column Store. IEEE Data Eng Bull. 2012;35(1):3–8

    2012

  58. [66]

    Jena TDB; 2021

    Jena Team. Jena TDB; 2021. Available from:https://jena.apache.org/documentation/tdb/

    2021

  59. [67]

    Blazegraph High Performance Graph Database; 2020

    Systap. Blazegraph High Performance Graph Database; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://blazegraph.com/

    2020

  60. [68]

    AllegroGraph; 1984

    Inc F. AllegroGraph; 1984. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://franz.com/agraph/allegrograph/

    1984

  61. [69]

    Enterprise Knowledge Graph platform; 2020

    Stardog. Enterprise Knowledge Graph platform; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://www.stardog.com/platform/

    2020

  62. [70]

    QLever: A Query Engine for Efficient SPARQL+Text Search

    Bast H, Buchhold B. QLever: A Query Engine for Efficient SPARQL+Text Search. In: Lim E, Winslett M, Sanderson M, Fu AW, Sun J, Culpepper JS, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2017, Singapore, November 06 - ...

    2017

  63. [71]

    Benchmarking SPARQL Engines on Wikidata Queries

    Patel-Schneider PF. Benchmarking SPARQL Engines on Wikidata Queries. In: Wikidata Workshop at ISWC

  64. [72]

    GraphQL; 2016

    Facebook, Inc . GraphQL; 2016. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]

    2016

  65. [73]

    An initial analysis of Facebook’s GraphQL language; 2017

    Hartig O, Pérez J. An initial analysis of Facebook’s GraphQL language; 2017. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:http://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/169110/A n-initial-analysis-of-facebooks-GraphQL-language.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    2017

  66. [74]

    Semantics and complexity of GraphQL

    Hartig O, Pérez J. Semantics and complexity of GraphQL. In: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference; 2018. p. 1155–1164

    2018

  67. [75]

    Neo4j and GraphQL; 2020

    Neo4j I. Neo4j and GraphQL; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://neo4j.com/developer/graphql/

    2020

  68. [76]

    A Graphical Query Language Supporting Recursion

    Cruz IF, Mendelzon AO, Wood PT. A Graphical Query Language Supporting Recursion. In: Dayal U, Traiger IL, editors. Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Management of Data 1987 Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 27-29, 198...

    1987

  69. [77]

    GraphLog: a Visual Formalism for Real Life Recursion

    Consens MP, Mendelzon AO. GraphLog: a Visual Formalism for Real Life Recursion. In: Rosenkrantz DJ, Sagiv Y, editors. Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, April 2-4, 1990, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. ACM Press; 1990. p. ...

    1990

  70. [78]

    G-Log: A graph-based query language

    Paredaens J, Peelman P, Tanca L. G-Log: A graph-based query language. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 1995;7(3):436–453

    1995

  71. [79]

    Existing Languages ; 2022

    Linked Data Benchmark Council. Existing Languages ; 2022. Available from: https://www.gqlstandards.org/existing-languages

    2022

  72. [80]

    Querying Graphs with Data

    Libkin L, Martens W, Vrgoc D. Querying Graphs with Data. J ACM. 2016;63(2):14:1–14:53. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/2850413

    2016 doi

  73. [81]

    A Query Language for a Web-Site Management System

    Fernandez MF, Florescu D, Levy AY, Suciu D. A Query Language for a Web-Site Management System. SIGMOD Rec. 1997;26(3):4–11. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1145/262762.262763

    1997

  74. [82]

    Regular Queries on Graph Databases

    Reutter JL, Romero M, Vardi MY. Regular Queries on Graph Databases. Theory Comput Syst. 2017;61(1):31–83. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00224-016-9676-2

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    Declarative and distributed graph analytics with GRADOOP

    Junghanns M, Kießling M, Teichmann N, Gómez K, Petermann A, Rahm E. Declarative and distributed graph analytics with GRADOOP. PVLDB. 2018;11(12):2006–2009. Available from: http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol11/p2006-junghanns.pdf. Coimbraet al. Page 55 of 60

    2018

  76. [84]

    GraphFrames

    Mishra RK, Raman SR. GraphFrames. In: PySpark SQL Recipes. Springer; 2019. p. 297–315. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4842-4335-0_9

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    PandaDB: Understanding Unstructured Data in Graph Database

    Shen Z, Zhao Z, Tang M, Hu C, Wang H, Zhou Y. PandaDB: Understanding Unstructured Data in Graph Database. arXiv preprint arXiv:210701963. 2021

    2021

  78. [86]

    Ubiquitous B-tree

    Comer D. Ubiquitous B-tree. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 1979;11(2):121–137

    1979

  79. [87]

    Modern B-tree techniques

    Graefe G, et al. Modern B-tree techniques. Foundations and Trends®in Databases. 2011;3(4):203–402

    2011

  80. [88]

    Managing gigabytes: compressing and indexing documents and images

    Witten IH, Moffat A, Bell TC, Bell TC, Fox E, Bell TC. Managing gigabytes: compressing and indexing documents and images. Morgan Kaufmann; 1999

    1999

  81. [89]

    Inverted files for text search engines

    Zobel J, Moffat A. Inverted files for text search engines. ACM computing surveys (CSUR). 2006;38(2):6–es

    2006

  82. [90]

    Optimization of inverted vector searches

    Buckley C, Lewit AF. Optimization of inverted vector searches. In: Proceedings of the 8th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval; 1985. p. 97–110

    1985

  83. [91]

    Graph database applications and concepts with Neo4j

    Miller JJ. Graph database applications and concepts with Neo4j. Proceedings of the Southern Association for Information Systems Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2013;2324(36). Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/322a/6e1f464330751dea2eb6beecac24466322ad.pdf

    2013

  84. [92]

    Sortledton: a universal, transactional graph data structure

    Fuchs P, Margan D, Giceva J. Sortledton: a universal, transactional graph data structure. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. 2022;15(6):1173–1186

    2022

  85. [93]

    ArcadeDB - Source Code; 2023

    Ltd AD. ArcadeDB - Source Code; 2023. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/ArcadeData/arcadedb

    2023

  86. [94]

    The log-structured merge-tree (LSM-tree)

    O’Neil P, Cheng E, Gawlick D, O’Neil E. The log-structured merge-tree (LSM-tree). Acta Informatica. 1996;33:351–385

    1996

  87. [95]

    LiveGraph: A transactional graph storage system with purely sequential adjacency list scans

    Zhu X, Feng G, Serafini M, Ma X, Yu J, Xie L, et al. LiveGraph: A transactional graph storage system with purely sequential adjacency list scans. arXiv preprint arXiv:191005773. 2019

    2019

  88. [96]

    ByteGraph: a high-performance distributed graph database in ByteDance

    Li C, Chen H, Zhang S, Hu Y, Chen C, Zhang Z, et al. ByteGraph: a high-performance distributed graph database in ByteDance. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. 2022;15(12):3306–3318

    2022

  89. [97]

    Succinct Data Structures and Delta Encoding for Modern Databases; 2020

    van Otterdijk M, Mendel-Gleason G, Feeney K. Succinct Data Structures and Delta Encoding for Modern Databases; 2020

    2020

  90. [98]

    Exchange and consumption of huge RDF data

    Martínez-Prieto MA, Arias Gallego M, Fernández JD. Exchange and consumption of huge RDF data. In: Extended Semantic Web Conference. Springer; 2012. p. 437–452

    2012

  91. [99]

    RDF-3X: a RISC-style engine for RDF

    Neumann T, Weikum G. RDF-3X: a RISC-style engine for RDF. Proc VLDB Endow. 2008;1(1):647–659. Available from:http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol1/1453927.pdf

    2008

  92. [100]

    KÙZU Graph Database Management System

    Jin G, Feng X, Chen Z, Liu C, Salihoglu S. KÙZU Graph Database Management System. In: 13th Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, CIDR 2023, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, January 8-11, 2023. www.cidrdb.org; 2023. Available from:https://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2023/papers/p48-jin.pdf

    2023

  93. [101]

    ZipG: A memory-efficient graph store for interactive queries

    Khandelwal A, Yang Z, Ye E, Agarwal R, Stoica I. ZipG: A memory-efficient graph store for interactive queries. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data; 2017. p. 1149–1164

    2017

  94. [102]

    Succinct: Enabling queries on compressed data

    Agarwal R, Khandelwal A, Stoica I. Succinct: Enabling queries on compressed data. In: 12th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 15); 2015. p. 337–350

    2015

  95. [103]

    Parallel sparse matrix-vector and matrix-transpose-vector multiplication using compressed sparse blocks

    Buluç A, Fineman JT, Frigo M, Gilbert JR, Leiserson CE. Parallel sparse matrix-vector and matrix-transpose-vector multiplication using compressed sparse blocks. In: Proceedings of the twenty-first annual symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures; 2009. p. 233–244

    2009

  96. [104]

    The WebGraph Framework II: Codes For The World-Wide Web

    Boldi P, Vigna S. The WebGraph Framework II: Codes For The World-Wide Web. In: 2004 Data Compression Conference (DCC 2004), 23-25 March 2004, Snowbird, UT, USA. IEEE Computer Society; 2004. p. 528. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1109/DCC.2004.1281504

    2004 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Compressed representation of dynamic binary relations with applications

    Brisaboa NR, Cerdeira-Pena A, de Bernardo G, Navarro G. Compressed representation of dynamic binary relations with applications. Information Systems. 2017;69:106–123

    2017

  98. [106]

    PK-Graph: Partitioned k2-Trees to Enable Compact and Dynamic Graphs in SparkGraphX

    Morais B, Coimbra ME, Veiga L. PK-Graph: Partitioned k2-Trees to Enable Compact and Dynamic Graphs in SparkGraphX. In: Cooperative Information Systems: 28th International Conference, CoopIS 2022, Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, October 4–7, 2022, Proceedings. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springe...

    2022 doi

  99. [107]

    Dynamic Data Structures for Document Collections and Graphs

    Munro JI, Nekrich Y, Vitter JS. Dynamic Data Structures for Document Collections and Graphs. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS); 2015. p. 277–289

    2015

  100. [108]

    A practical succinct dynamic graph representation

    Coimbra ME, Hrotkó J, Francisco AP, Russo LM, de Bernardo G, Ladra S, et al. A practical succinct dynamic graph representation. Information and Computation. 2022;285:104862

    2022

  101. [109]

    Log (graph) a near-optimal high-performance graph representation

    Besta M, Stanojevic D, Zivic T, Singh J, Hoerold M, Hoefler T. Log (graph) a near-optimal high-performance graph representation. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques; 2018. p. 1–13

    2018

  102. [110]

    G-Tran: a high performance distributed graph database with a decentralized architecture

    Chen H, Li C, Zheng C, Huang C, Fang J, Cheng J, et al. G-Tran: a high performance distributed graph database with a decentralized architecture. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. 2022;15(11):2545–2558

    2022

  103. [111]

    Integrity constraints in graph databases

    Pokorný J, Valenta M, Kovačič J. Integrity constraints in graph databases. Procedia Computer Science. 2017;109:975–981. 8th International Conference on Ambient Systems, Networks and Technologies, ANT-2017 and the 7th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Information T...

    2017

  104. [112]

    On measuring inconsistency in graph databases with regular path constraints

    Grant J, Parisi F. On measuring inconsistency in graph databases with regular path constraints. Artificial Intelligence. 2024;335:104197. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370224001334

    2024

  105. [113]

    Sqlgraph: An efficient relational-based property graph store

    Sun W, Fokoue A, Srinivas K, Kementsietsidis A, Hu G, Xie G. Sqlgraph: An efficient relational-based property graph store. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2015. p. 1887–1901

    2015

  106. [114]

    Social hash: an assignment framework for optimizing distributed systems operations on social networks

    Shalita A, Karrer B, Kabiljo I, Sharma A, Presta A, Adcock A, et al. Social hash: an assignment framework for optimizing distributed systems operations on social networks. In: 13th{USENIX}Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation ({NSDI}16); 2016. p. 455–468. Co...

    2016

  107. [115]

    The end of a myth: Distributed transactions can scale

    Zamanian E, Binnig C, Kraska T, Harris T. The end of a myth: Distributed transactions can scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:160700655. 2016

    2016

  108. [116]

    Survey of graph database models

    Angles R, Gutierrez C. Survey of graph database models. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 2008;40(1):1–39

    2008

  109. [117]

    Graph Databases: Their Power and Limitations

    Pokorný J. Graph Databases: Their Power and Limitations. In: Saeed K, Homenda W, editors. Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 58–69

    2015

  110. [118]

    [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]

    G.V() – Gremlin Graph Database IDE and Visualization Tool; 2024. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://gdotv.com/

    2024

  111. [119]

    Alibaba Graph Database; 2020

    Alibaba Cloud. Alibaba Graph Database; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://cn.aliyun.com/product/gdb

    2020

  112. [120]

    TuGraph - Source Code; 2022

    TuGraph. TuGraph - Source Code; 2022. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/TuGraph-family/tugraph-db

    2022

  113. [121]

    Apache HugeGraph - Source Code; 2023

    Li J, et al. Apache HugeGraph - Source Code; 2023. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/apache/incubator-hugegraph

    2023

  114. [122]

    Consistent hashing with bounded loads

    Mirrokni V, Thorup M, Zadimoghaddam M. Consistent hashing with bounded loads. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. SIAM; 2018. p. 587–604

    2018

  115. [123]

    ByteGraph - Query Set; 2022

    Li C, Chen H, Zhang S, Hu Y, Chen C, Zhang Z, et al. ByteGraph - Query Set; 2022. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/Aaronchangji/ByteGraph-Paper-Query-Set

    2022

  116. [124]

    ChronoGraph: A Versioned TinkerPop Graph Database

    Haeusler M, Trojer T, Kessler J, Farwick M, Nowakowski E, Breu R. ChronoGraph: A Versioned TinkerPop Graph Database. In: International Conference on Data Management Technologies and Applications. Springer

  117. [125]

    ChronoDB - Source Code; 2020

    Haeusler M, Trojer T, Kessler J, Farwick M, Nowakowski E, Breu R. ChronoDB - Source Code; 2020. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/MartinHaeusler/chronos/tree/master/org.chronos.chronodb

    2020

  118. [126]

    Cassandra: A Decentralized Structured Storage System

    Lakshman A, Malik P. Cassandra: A Decentralized Structured Storage System. SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev. 2010 Apr;44(2):35–40. Available from:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1773912.1773922

    2010

  119. [127]

    A Tour of Dgraph; 2020

    Dgraph Labs, Inc . A Tour of Dgraph; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://dgraph.io/docs/query-language/

    2020

  120. [128]

    Dgraph - Source Code; 2020

    Dgraph Labs, Inc . Dgraph - Source Code; 2020. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph

    2020

  121. [129]

    Galaxybase; 2023

    Chuanglin Technology Co L. Galaxybase; 2023. [Online, Homepage; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://www.galaxybase.com/report/enterprise

    2023

  122. [130]

    Gaffer - Source Code; 2022

    GHCQ. Gaffer - Source Code; 2022. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/gchq/Gaffer

    2022

  123. [131]

    Apache Accumulo for Developers

    Halldórsson GJ. Apache Accumulo for Developers. Packt Publishing; 2013

    2013

  124. [132]

    HBase - The Definitive Guide: Random Access to Your Planet-Size Data

    George L. HBase - The Definitive Guide: Random Access to Your Planet-Size Data. O’Reilly; 2011. Available from:http://www.oreilly.de/catalog/9781449396107/index.html

    2011

  125. [133]

    Apache parquet

    Vohra D. Apache parquet. In: Practical Hadoop Ecosystem. Springer; 2016. p. 325–335

    2016

  126. [134]

    Optimizing Subgraph Queries by Combining Binary and Worst-Case Optimal Joins

    Mhedhbi A, Salihoglu S. Optimizing Subgraph Queries by Combining Binary and Worst-Case Optimal Joins. Proc VLDB Endow. 2019 Jul;12(11):1692–1704. Available from: https://doi.org/10.14778/3342263.3342643

    2019

  127. [135]

    A+ Indexes: Lightweight and Highly Flexible Adjacency Lists for Graph Database Management Systems; 2020

    Mhedhbi A, Gupta P, Khaliq S, Salihoglu S. A+ Indexes: Lightweight and Highly Flexible Adjacency Lists for Graph Database Management Systems; 2020. ArXiv preprint arXiv:2004.00130

    2020 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Graphflow - Source Code; 2017

    Kankanamge, Chathura and Sahu, Siddhartha and Mhedbhi, Amine and Chen, Jeremy and Salihoglu, Semih. Graphflow - Source Code; 2017. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/colinsongf/graphflow

    2017

  129. [137]

    G-Tran - Source Code; 2022

    Chen H, Li C, Zheng C, Huang C, Fang J, Cheng J, et al. G-Tran - Source Code; 2022. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/yaobaiwei/GTran

    2022

  130. [138]

    HGraphDB - Source Code; 2023

    Yokota R, Brukman M, Feng H, Rosenbauer Z, et al. HGraphDB - Source Code; 2023. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/rayokota/hgraphdb

    2023

  131. [139]

    JanusGraph - Source Code; 2020

    Authors J. JanusGraph - Source Code; 2020. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph

    2020

  132. [140]

    Gluon: A communication-optimizing substrate for distributed heterogeneous graph analytics

    Dathathri R, Gill G, Hoang L, Dang HV, Brooks A, Dryden N, et al. Gluon: A communication-optimizing substrate for distributed heterogeneous graph analytics. In: Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation; 2018. p. 752–768

    2018

  133. [141]

    Cusp: A customizable streaming edge partitioner for distributed graph analytics

    Hoang L, Dathathri R, Gill G, Pingali K. Cusp: A customizable streaming edge partitioner for distributed graph analytics. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review. 2021;55(1):47–60

    2021

  134. [142]

    LiveGraph - Source Code; 2020

    Zhu X, Feng G, Serafini M, Ma X, Yu J, Xie L, et al. LiveGraph - Source Code; 2020. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/thu-pacman/LiveGraph

    2020

  135. [143]

    Memgraph - Source Code; 2022

    Ltd M. Memgraph - Source Code; 2022. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/memgraph/memgraph

    2022

  136. [144]

    Nebula Graph - Source Code; 2020

    VESoft Inc . Nebula Graph - Source Code; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/vesoft-inc/nebula

    2020

  137. [145]

    RocksDB - Source Code; 2012

    Facebook Database Engineering Team. RocksDB - Source Code; 2012. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb

    2012

  138. [146]

    Neo4j - Source Code; 2020

    Neo4j Inc . Neo4j - Source Code; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j

    2020

  139. [147]

    GRANDstack; 2020

    Lyon W. GRANDstack; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://grandstack.io/

    2020

  140. [148]

    PandaDB - Source Code; 2022

    Shen Z, Zhao Z, Tang M, Hu C, Wang H, Zhou Y. PandaDB - Source Code; 2022. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/grapheco/pandadb-v0.3. Coimbraet al. Page 57 of 60

    2022

  141. [149]

    RedisGraph - Source Code; 2020

    Ltd RL. RedisGraph - Source Code; 2020. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/RedisGraph/RedisGraph

    2020

  142. [150]

    Graph Processing Using SAP HANA: A Teaching Case

    Hwang M. Graph Processing Using SAP HANA: A Teaching Case. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching. 2018;12(2):155–165

    2018

  143. [151]

    SAP HANA Graph Academy - Source Code; 2018

    SAP SE. SAP HANA Graph Academy - Source Code; 2018. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/saphanaacademy/Graph

    2018

  144. [152]

    DEX: A high-performance graph database management system

    Martinez-Bazan N, Gomez-Villamor S, Escale-Claveras F. DEX: A high-performance graph database management system. In: 2011 IEEE 27th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops. IEEE

    2011

  145. [153]

    Scalable high-performance graph database; 2015

    Sparsity Technologies. Scalable high-performance graph database; 2015. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:http://www.sparsity-technologies.com/

    2015

  146. [154]

    StellarDB; 2023

    StellarDB. StellarDB; 2023. [Online, Homepage; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://www.transwarp.cn/en/product/stellardb

    2023

  147. [155]

    In: 2013 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 13); 2013

    Bronson N, Amsden Z, Cabrera G, Chakka P, Dimov P, Ding H, et al.{TAO}:{Facebook’s}Distributed Data Store for the Social Graph. In: 2013 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 13); 2013. p. 49–60

    2013

  148. [156]

    RAMP-TAO: layering atomic transactions on Facebook’s online TAO data store

    Cheng A, Shi X, Pan L, Simpson A, Wheaton N, Lawande S, et al. RAMP-TAO: layering atomic transactions on Facebook’s online TAO data store. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. 2021;14(12):3014–3027

    2021

  149. [157]

    TigerGraph: A Native MPP Graph Database

    Deutsch A, Xu Y, Wu M, Lee V. TigerGraph: A Native MPP Graph Database. arXiv preprint arXiv:190108248. 2019

    2019

  150. [158]

    The World’s Fastest and Most Scalable Graph Platform; 2020

    TigerGraph. The World’s Fastest and Most Scalable Graph Platform; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://www.tigergraph.com/

    2020

  151. [159]

    TiDB: a Raft-based HTAP database

    Huang D, Liu Q, Cui Q, Fang Z, Ma X, Xu F, et al. TiDB: a Raft-based HTAP database. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. 2020;13(12):3072–3084

    2020

  152. [160]

    Weaver: A High-Performance, Transactional Graph Database Based on Refinable Timestamps

    Dubey A, Hill GD, Escriva R, Sirer EG. Weaver: A High-Performance, Transactional Graph Database Based on Refinable Timestamps. PVLDB. 2016;9(11):852–863. Available from: http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol9/p852-dubey.pdf

    2016

  153. [161]

    Weaver - Source Code; 2016

    Dubey A. Weaver - Source Code; 2016. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/dubey/weaver

    2016

  154. [162]

    ZipG - Source Code; 2017

    Khandelwal A, Yang Z, Ye E, Agarwal R, Stoica I. ZipG - Source Code; 2017. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/amplab/zipg

    2017

  155. [163]

    Reconciliation of RDF* and property graphs

    Hartig O. Reconciliation of RDF* and property graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:14093288. 2014

    2014

  156. [164]

    BrightstarDB - Source Code; 2015

    BrightstarDB. BrightstarDB - Source Code; 2015. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/BrightstarDB/BrightstarDB

    2015

  157. [165]

    Loading and querying a trillion rdf triples with cray graph engine on the cray xc

    Rickett CD, Haus UU, Maltby J, Maschhoff KJ. Loading and querying a trillion rdf triples with cray graph engine on the cray xc. Cray User Group. 2018

    2018

  158. [166]

    Cray XC series network

    Alverson B, Froese E, Kaplan L, Roweth D. Cray XC series network. Cray Inc, White Paper WP-Aries01-1112. 2012

    2012

  159. [167]

    Fluree; 2023

    Fluree. Fluree; 2023. [Online, Homepage; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://flur.ee/

    2023

  160. [168]

    Fluree - Source Code; 2023

    Fluree. Fluree - Source Code; 2023. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/fluree/db

    2023

  161. [169]

    GraphDB | The Best RDF Database for Knowledge Graphs; 2020

    Ontotext. GraphDB | The Best RDF Database for Knowledge Graphs; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://www.ontotext.com/products/graphdb/#GraphDB-table

    2020

  162. [170]

    TerminusDB - Source Code; 2021

    van Otterdijk M, Mendel-Gleason G, Feeney K. TerminusDB - Source Code; 2021. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/terminusdb

    2021

  163. [171]

    AgensGraph; 2023

    Inc BG. AgensGraph; 2023. [Online, Homepage; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://bitnine.net/

    2023

  164. [172]

    AgensGraph - Source Code; 2023

    Inc BG. AgensGraph - Source Code; 2023. [Online, Homepage; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/bitnine-oss/agensgraph

    2023

  165. [173]

    AnzoGraph®DB; 2020

    Cambridge Semantics. AnzoGraph®DB; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://www.cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph/

    2020

  166. [174]

    Amazon Neptune Samples - Source Code; 2020

    Amazon I. Amazon Neptune Samples - Source Code; 2020. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/aws-samples/amazon-neptune-samples

    2020

  167. [175]

    Amazon Neptune Documentation - Use Neptune graph notebooks to get started quickly; 2021

    Amazon I. Amazon Neptune Documentation - Use Neptune graph notebooks to get started quickly; 2021. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/neptune/latest/userguide/graph-notebooks.html

    2021

  168. [176]

    ArangoDB - Source Code; 2020

    Schmidts T, Steemann J, Celler F. ArangoDB - Source Code; 2020. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/arangodb/arangodb

    2020

  169. [177]

    BangDB - Source Code; 2023

    Sinha S, et al. BangDB - Source Code; 2023. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/sachin-sinha/BangDB

    2023

  170. [178]

    The World is Big and Linked: Whole Spectrum Industry Solutions towards Big Graphs - Graph Computing and Tutorial of IBM System G; 2015

    IBM System G Team. The World is Big and Linked: Whole Spectrum Industry Solutions towards Big Graphs - Graph Computing and Tutorial of IBM System G; 2015. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://cci.drexel.edu/bigdata/bigdata2015/Compressed-Tutorial_IEEE-Bi...

    2015

  171. [179]

    MillenniumDB - Source Code

    Vrgoc D, Rojas C, Angles R, Arenas M, Arroyuelo D, Buil-Aranda C, et al. MillenniumDB - Source Code

  172. [180]

    Triejoin: A Simple, Worst-Case Optimal Join Algorithm

    Veldhuizen TL. Triejoin: A Simple, Worst-Case Optimal Join Algorithm. In: Schweikardt N, Christophides V, Leroy V, editors. Proc. 17th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT), Athens, Greece, March 24-28, 2014. OpenProceedings.org; 2014. p. 96–106. Available from: h...

    2014 doi

  173. [181]

    Spatial and Graph features in Oracle Database; 2020

    Oracle. Spatial and Graph features in Oracle Database; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://www.oracle.com/database/technologies/spatialandgraph.html. Coimbraet al. Page 58 of 60

    2020

  174. [182]

    OrientDB - Source Code; 2020

    OrientDB LTD. OrientDB - Source Code; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/orientechnologies/orientdb

    2020

  175. [183]

    SurrealDB - Source Code; 2023

    Hitchcock T, Mushambi R, Keller E, Kaznowski P, et al. SurrealDB - Source Code; 2023. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb

    2023

  176. [184]

    Available from: https://github.com/MillenniumDB/MillenniumDB

    [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/MillenniumDB/MillenniumDB

    2025

  177. [185]

    Hub for Azure Cosmos DB - Source Code; 2019

    Microsoft Corporation. Hub for Azure Cosmos DB - Source Code; 2019. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/Azure/cosmos

    2019

  178. [186]

    FaunaDB | The database built for serverless, featuring native GraphQL; 2020

    Fauna I. FaunaDB | The database built for serverless, featuring native GraphQL; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://fauna.com/

    2020

  179. [187]

    Google Cayley - Source Code; 2017

    Google. Google Cayley - Source Code; 2017. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://github.com/cayleygraph/cayley

    2017

  180. [188]

    Optimizing Schema-last Tuple-store Queries in Graphd

    Meyer SM, Degener J, Giannandrea J, Michener B. Optimizing Schema-last Tuple-store Queries in Graphd. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. SIGMOD ’10. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2010. p. 1047–1056. Available from: http://doi.acm.o...

    2010

  181. [189]

    Virtuoso Open-Source Edition - Source Code; 2020

    OpenLink Software. Virtuoso Open-Source Edition - Source Code; 2020. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/openlink/virtuoso-opensource

    2020

  182. [190]

    Distributed HypergraphDB: partial replication; 2020

    Iordanov B. Distributed HypergraphDB: partial replication; 2020. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://groups.google.com/d/msg/hypergraphdb/ef8eWRWjc2E/0GyGcEsEDwAJ

    2020

  183. [191]

    TypeDB - Source Code; 2023

    Piskorski K, Chapman F, Teixeira F, Send J, Hananda Go. TypeDB - Source Code; 2023. [Online, GitHub; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://github.com/vaticle/typedb

    2023

  184. [192]

    Open Query GRAPH computation engine; 2016

    MariaDB. Open Query GRAPH computation engine; 2016. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from:https://mariadb.com/kb/en/oqgraph-storage-engine/

    2016

  185. [193]

    GBLENDER: towards blending visual query formulation and query processing in graph databases

    Jin C, Bhowmick SS, Xiao X, Cheng J, Choi B. GBLENDER: towards blending visual query formulation and query processing in graph databases. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data; 2010. p. 111–122

    2010

  186. [194]

    HyperGraphDB: a generalized graph database

    Iordanov B. HyperGraphDB: a generalized graph database. In: International Conference on Web-age Information Management. Springer; 2010. p. 25–36

    2010

  187. [195]

    An overview of graph databases

    Shimpi D, Chaudhari S. An overview of graph databases. In: Int. Conf. on Recent Trends in Information Technology and Computer Science; 2012. p. 16–22

    2012

  188. [196]

    Experimental comparison of graph databases

    Kolomičenko V, Svoboda M, Ml`ynková IH. Experimental comparison of graph databases. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services; 2013. p. 115–124

    2013

  189. [197]

    Evaluation of contemporary graph databases

    Vaikuntam A, Perumal VK. Evaluation of contemporary graph databases. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM India Computing Conference. COMPUTE ’14. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

  190. [198]

    Model-driven design of graph databases

    De Virgilio R, Maccioni A, Torlone R. Model-driven design of graph databases. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Springer; 2014. p. 172–185

    2014

  191. [199]

    The current state of graph databases

    Buerli M, Obispo C. The current state of graph databases. Department of Computer Science, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. 2012;32(3):67–83

    2012

  192. [200]

    O’Reilly Media, Inc

    Robinson I, Webber J, Eifrem E. Graph databases: new opportunities for connected data. " O’Reilly Media, Inc."; 2015

    2015

  193. [201]

    Survey on NoSQL database

    Han J, E H, Le G, Du J. Survey on NoSQL database. In: 2011 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Applications; 2011. p. 363–366

    2011

  194. [202]

    A Survey on NoSQL Databases

    Gajendran SK. A Survey on NoSQL Databases. University of Illinois; 2012

    2012

  195. [203]

    Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on Big Data

    Philip Chen CL, Zhang CY. Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on Big Data. Information Sciences. 2014;275:314–347. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025514000346

    2014

  196. [204]

    A survey on NoSQL stores

    Davoudian A, Chen L, Liu M. A survey on NoSQL stores. ACM Comput Surv. 2018;51(2):43

    2018

  197. [205]

    System and method for creating, deploying, integrating, and distributing nodes in a grid of distributed graph databases

    Henderson CE. System and method for creating, deploying, integrating, and distributing nodes in a grid of distributed graph databases. Google Patents; 2014. US Patent 8,775,476

    2014

  198. [206]

    Graph databases: A survey

    Kaliyar RK. Graph databases: A survey. International Conference on Computing, Communication & Automation. 2015

    2015

  199. [207]

    G-CORE: A core for future graph query languages

    Angles R, Arenas M, Barceló P, Boncz P, Fletcher G, Gutierrez C, et al. G-CORE: A core for future graph query languages. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data; 2018. p. 1421–1432

    2018

  200. [208]

    Demystifying Graph Databases: Analysis and Taxonomy of Data Organization, System Designs, and Graph Queries

    Besta, Maciej and Gerstenberger, Robert and Peter, Emanuel and Fischer, Marc and Podstawski, Michał and Barthels, Claude and Alonso, Gustavo and Hoefler, Torsten. Demystifying Graph Databases: Analysis and Taxonomy of Data Organization, System Designs, and Graph Queries. ACM C...

    2023 doi

  201. [209]

    A Survey on Graph Database Management Techniques for Huge Unstructured Data

    Patil NS, Kiran P, Kiran NP, Patel K. A Survey on Graph Database Management Techniques for Huge Unstructured Data. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering. 2018;8:1140–1149

    2018

  202. [210]

    Designing Graph Databases With GRAPHED

    Erven S, et al. Designing Graph Databases With GRAPHED. 2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). 2019;p. 2574–2577

    2019

  203. [211]

    SQL, NewSQL, and NOSQL Databases: A Comparative Survey

    Khasawneh TN, AL-Sahlee MH, Safia AA. SQL, NewSQL, and NOSQL Databases: A Comparative Survey. In: 2020 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Systems (ICICS); 2020. p. 013–021

    2020

  204. [212]

    Mammoths Are Slow: The Overlooked Transactions of Graph Data

    Cheng A, Waudby J, Crooks N, Firth H, Stoica I. Mammoths Are Slow: The Overlooked Transactions of Graph Data. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. 2023;17(4):904–911

    2023

  205. [213]

    Scalable performance of ScaleGraph for large scale graph analysis

    Dayarathna M, Houngkaew C, Ogata H, Suzumura T. Scalable performance of ScaleGraph for large scale graph analysis. 2012 19th International Conference on High Performance Computing. 2012;p. 1–9. Coimbraet al. Page 59 of 60

    2012

  206. [214]

    The Graph Database Interface: Scaling Online Transactional and Analytical Graph Workloads to Hundreds of Thousands of Cores

    Besta M, Gerstenberger R, Fischer M, Podstawski M, Blach N, Egeli B, et al. The Graph Database Interface: Scaling Online Transactional and Analytical Graph Workloads to Hundreds of Thousands of Cores. In: Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computi...

    2023

  207. [215]

    The Little Engine(s) That Could: Scaling Online Social Networks

    Pujol JM, Erramilli V, Siganos G, Yang X, Laoutaris N, Chhabra P, et al. The Little Engine(s) That Could: Scaling Online Social Networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking. 2010;20:1162–1175

    2010

  208. [216]

    A survey of current challenges in partitioning and processing of graph-structured data in parallel and distributed systems

    Adoni H, Nahhal T, Krichen M, Aghezzaf B, Elbyed A. A survey of current challenges in partitioning and processing of graph-structured data in parallel and distributed systems. Distributed and Parallel Databases. 2019;38:495 – 530

    2019

  209. [217]

    Transaction Management for Cloud-Based Graph Databases

    Koloniari G, Pitoura E. Transaction Management for Cloud-Based Graph Databases. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2015;p. 99–113

    2015

  210. [218]

    Indexing Techniques for Graph Reachability Queries; 2023

    Zhang C, Bonifati A, Özsu MT. Indexing Techniques for Graph Reachability Queries; 2023

    2023

  211. [219]

    A Proposal for Optimization of Horizontal Scaling in Big Data Environment

    Roy C, Pandey M, Rautaray S. A Proposal for Optimization of Horizontal Scaling in Big Data Environment. In book: Advances in Data and Information Sciences. 2018;p. 223–230

    2018

  212. [220]

    A performance evaluation of open source graph databases

    McColl R, Ediger D, Poovey JA, Campbell D, Bader DA. A performance evaluation of open source graph databases. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences and Systems. 2014;p. 11–18

    2014

  213. [221]

    Beyond macrobenchmarks: microbenchmark-based graph database evaluation

    Lissandrini M, Brugnara M, Velegrakis Y. Beyond macrobenchmarks: microbenchmark-based graph database evaluation. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. 2018;12(4):390–403

    2018

  214. [222]

    Non-relational Databases on FPGAs: Survey, Design Decisions, Challenges

    Dann J, Ritter D, Fröning H. Non-relational Databases on FPGAs: Survey, Design Decisions, Challenges. ACM Comput Surv. 2023 feb;55(11). Available from:https://doi.org/10.1145/3568990

    2023 doi

  215. [223]

    An Overview of Reachability Indexes on Graphs

    Zhang C, Bonifati A, Özsu MT. An Overview of Reachability Indexes on Graphs. In: Companion of the 2023 International Conference on Management of Data. SIGMOD ’23. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2023. p. 61–68. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1145/355...

    2023

  216. [224]

    Benchmarking Graph Data Management and Processing Systems: A Survey

    Dayarathna M, Suzumura T. Benchmarking Graph Data Management and Processing Systems: A Survey. CoRR. 2020;abs/2005.12873. Available from:https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.12873

    2020 arXiv

  217. [225]

    Performance of Graph Query Languages: Comparison of Cypher, Gremlin and Native Access in Neo4J

    Holzschuher F, Peinl R. Performance of Graph Query Languages: Comparison of Cypher, Gremlin and Native Access in Neo4J. In: Proceedings of the Joint EDBT/ICDT 2013 Workshops. EDBT ’13. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2013. p. 195–204. Available from:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2457317.2457351

    2013

  218. [226]

    Towards an International Standard for the GQL Graph Query Language; 2019

    Plantikow S. Towards an International Standard for the GQL Graph Query Language; 2019. [Online; accessed 17-December-2025]. Available from: https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/assets/position/Stefan%20Plantikow.pdf

    2019

  219. [227]

    LSQB: a large-scale subgraph query benchmark

    Mhedhbi A, Lissandrini M, Kuiper L, Waudby J, Szárnyas G. LSQB: a large-scale subgraph query benchmark. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGMOD Joint International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences & Systems (GRADES) and Network Data Analytics (NDA); 2021. p. 1–11

    2021

  220. [228]

    read uncommitted

    Lissandrini M, Mottin D, Hose K, Pedersen TB. Knowledge graph exploration systems: Are we lost? In: Annual Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research; 2022. . Coimbraet al. Page 60 of 60 Table 15: Description of graph database and systems analysis features. Feature Descrip...

    2022

  221. [229]

    Survey of graph database performance on the hpc scalable graph analysis benchmark

    Dominguez-Sal D, Urbón-Bayes P, Giménez-Vanó A, Gómez-Villamor S, Martínez-Bazan N, Larriba-Pey JL. Survey of graph database performance on the hpc scalable graph analysis benchmark. In: International Conference on Web-Age Information Management. Springer; 2010. p. 37–48

    2010

  222. [2014]

    Available from:https://doi.org/10.1145/2675744.2675752

  223. [2017]

    ACM; 2017. p. 3:1–3:8. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1145/3078447.3078450

    2017

  224. [2020]

    p. 278–293. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62466-8_18

    doi

  225. [2024]

    Available from: https://www.nebula-graph.io/posts/rc_release_of_nebulagraph_enterprise_v5.0

  226. [2025]

    Nara, Japan: Wikidata Workshop at ISWC 2025; 2025. p. 1–13. Available from: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-4108/paper3.pdf

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.