Benchmarking traversal operations over graph databases Marek Ciglan 1, Alex Averbuch 2 and Ladialav Hluchý 1 1 Institute of Informatics, Slovak Academy of sciences, Bratislava 2 Swedish Institute of Computer Science Stockholm, Sweden

Overview Graph data management Graph databases –Characteristics –Unique features –Challenges GDB Benchmarking –Motivation –Related work Graph traversal benchmark –Goals –Design Preliminary results 21 November 20112

Booming area of R&D in recent years Reasons: –Increased availability and importance of graph data –Natural way for modelling various real world phenomena (networks: social, information, communication) Two dominant data management directions: –Distributed graph processing frameworks Mining/processing of large graphs –Pregel and clones (Goden Orb, Giraph) –Graph databases Persistent management of graph data –Neo4J, OrientDB, Dex Graph data management 21 November 20113

Graph databases Property graph data model –Graph structure –Elements have properties 21 November Node K1 Attr I1: val Attr I2: val Attr I3: val Node K1 Attr I1: val Attr I2: val Attr I3: val Node K3 Attr I1: val Attr I2: val Attr I3: val Node K3 Attr I1: val Attr I2: val Attr I3: val Node K4 Attr I1: val Attr I2: val Attr I3: val Node K4 Attr I1: val Attr I2: val Attr I3: val Node K2 Attr I1: val Attr I2: val Attr I3: val Node K2 Attr I1: val Attr I2: val Attr I3: val L1 L3 L2 L1

Graph databases Property graph data model –Graph structure –Elements have properties Unique feature –Graph topology capturing the relations of objects –Graph database should be Efficient in exploiting topology Allows for fast traversal Challenges –Traditionally – graph processing/traversing done in memory –Reasons: Data driven computation Random access pattern for data access 21 November 20115

Graph database benchmarking Motivation –Number of emerging graph data management solutions. –Which is right one for a specific problem? –Fair measurement of performance for distinct use cases. –Identify limits – what use cases have good performance. 21 November 20116

Graph database benchmarking Motivation –Number of emerging graph data management solutions. –Which is right one for a specific problem? –Fair measurement of performance for distinct use cases. –Identify limits – what use cases have good performance. Related work –Only few works address directly graph databases D. Dominguez-Sal et al: –Adoption of HPC benchmark for graph data processing –Design of a benchmark suitable for graph database systems GraphBench - basic benchmarking framework implementation 21 November 20117

Graph database benchmarking Motivation –Number of emerging graph data management solutions. –Which is right one for a specific problem? –Fair measurement of performance for distinct use cases. –Identify limits – what use cases have good performance. Traversal operation benchmarking –Graph topology – unique feature of the graph databases –Test the ability to do: Local traversals (exploring k-hops neighbourhood) Global traversals (traversals of whole graph) –Perform traversals in a memory constraint environment (can we deal efficiently with data sets exceeding the physical memory?) 21 November 20118

Benchmark design Fairness –Blueprints API – effort to provide common API –Using Blueprints – one implementation of benchmark for all the benchmarked systems Avoid bias of different implementation of benchmark for different systems –execution of the same sequence of operations on the same data log operations and their parameters in the first run over the defined data logs are persistent, allowing benchmarks to be rerun on different versions of a product, and the change in performance can thus be measured 21 November 20119

Benchmark design Data –Different data properties / distributions affects benchmark results E.g. dense vs. sparse graphs –Ideally, data sets properties similar to those of real world data sets –Use: scale free networks with small world properties social networks, the Internet, traffic networks, biological networks, and term co- occurrence networks LFR-Benchmark generator - networks with power-law degree distribution and implanted communities within the network 21 November

Benchmark design Traversal operations –Local traversals Compute local clustering coefficient (2-hops breadth first traversal) 3-hops breadth first traversal –Global traversals Compute connected components –Incomming / ougoing edges k-iterations of HITS algorithm Memory constraint environment Intermediate results for global traversals operations: –Kept in memory –Kept as properties on nodes 21 November

Benchmark implementation Implemented on top of Blueprints API Test performed on: –Neo4J, –DEX, –OrientDB 6, –Native RDF repository (NativeSail) –SGDB (research prototype ) Challenge: deal with differences in underlying systems, E.g.: –triple stores – naming constraints, –some impl. do not support properties on some elements –Some impl. do not support iteration over nodes/edges –Nodes Ids generation – user provided vs. autogenerated –Transaction support / no transactions 21 November

Benchmark Runs Performed on older hardware: –2G mem Data sets sizes: –1K, 10K, 40K, 50K, 100K, 200K, 400K, 800K, 1M –Most systems were not able to load nets with 400K+ edges (constraint: load 10K edges in less than 60 sec.) 21 November

Graph loading – elements insertion 21 November

Local traversal – BFS 3 hops 21 November

Global traversals – connected components 21 November

Conclusion Extending work on benchmarking graph databases Focusing on graph traversal operations Local/Global traversals Preliminary results: –Problem just to load larger datasets into GDBs –Stable performance for local traversals with 2-3 hops Suitable for most ego-centric node properties analysis –Bad performance for global traversal operations on larger networks 21 November

Thank you for your attention November

SemSets – activation spreading over network 21 November