I benchmarked CognoDB against four other graph databases. The most interesting result had nothing to do with CognoDB.
I was asked to benchmark CognoDB Cloud, a managed graph database, against four other graph platforms on the same hardware, the same dataset, and the same queries. The brief was clear about one thing: this isn't about proving a winner, it's about proving the comparison itself is fair. That's the part I actually cared about getting right, coming from a DevOps background — a benchmark is only as…
In a recent benchmark of four graph databases, the most intriguing result was not related to CognoDB Cloud. The primary goal of the comparison was to ensure fairness, not to determine a single winner. CognoDB's free tier indeed provided 512 MB of RAM, not the 256 MB documented. Under this realistic RAM cap, Neo4j Community failed 740 out of 744 operations when pushed to 40 concurrent clients, indicating a failure rather than a slowdown.
The benchmark involved running the same six measurements on Neo4j Community, Memgraph Community, ArangoDB Community, and FalkorDB on movieLens 100K dataset. Notably, CognoDB handled 40 concurrent clients without errors, while Neo4j and Memgraph showed contrasting behaviors under load. CognoDB's aggregation query was the slowest, taking over three seconds, while Neo4j and Memgraph finished the same query in about a quarter of a second.
Additionally, FalkorDB's aggregation query sometimes silently timed out due to a one-second default query timeout in its Docker image. The benchmark revealed that graph databases appearing similar on paper could perform significantly differently under load, highlighting the importance of thorough testing before making evaluations.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
This story
This is one outlet's version. Read the fullest account.
