Perbandingan Performa Relational, Document-Oriented dan Graph Database Pada Struktur Data Directed Acyclic Graph
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24002/jbi.v8i2.1079Abstract
Abstract.
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) is a directed graph which is not cyclic and is usually employed in social network and data genealogy. Based on the characteristic of DAG data, a suitable database type should be evaluated and then chosen as a platform. A performance comparison among relational database (PostgreSQL), document-oriented database (MongoDB), and graph database (Neo4j) on a DAG dataset are then conducted to get the appropriate database type. The performance test is done on Node.js running on Windows 10 and uses the dataset that has 3910 nodes in single write synchronous (SWS) and single read (SR). The access performance of PostgreSQL is 0.64ms on SWS and 0.32ms on SR, MongoDB is 0.64ms on SWS and 4.59ms on SR, and Neo4j is 9.92ms on SWS and 8.92ms on SR. Hence, relational database (PostgreSQL) has better performance in the operation of SWS and SR than document-oriented database (MongoDB) and graph database (Neo4j).
Keywords: database performance, directed acyclic graph, relational database, document-oriented database, graph database
Abstrak.
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) adalah graf berarah tanpa putaran yang dapat ditemui pada data jejaring sosial dan silsilah keluarga. Setiap jenis database memiliki performa yang berbeda sesuai dengan struktur data yang ditangani. Oleh karena itu perlu diketahui database yang tepat khususnya untuk data DAG. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah membandingkan performa dari relational database (PostgreSQL), document-oriented database (MongoDB) dan graph database (Neo4j) pada data DAG. Metode yang dilakukan adalah mengimplentasi dataset yang memiliki 3910 node dalam operasi single write synchronous (SWS) dan single read (SR) pada setiap database menggunakan Node.js dalam Windows 10. Hasil pengujian performa PostgreSQL dalam operasi SWS sebesar 0.64ms dan SR sebesar 0.32ms, performa MongoDB pada SWS sebesar 0.64ms dan SR sebesar 4.59ms sedangkan performa Neo4j pada operasi SWS sebesar 9.92ms dan SR sebesar 8.92ms. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa relational database (PostgreSQL) memiliki performa terbaik dalam operasi SWS dan SR dibandingkan document-oriented database (MongoDB) dan graph database (Neo4j).
Kata Kunci: performa database, directed acyclic graph, relational database, document-oriented database, graph database
References
Angles, R., & Gutierrez, C. (2008). Survey of graph database models. ACM Computing Surveys, 40(1), 1–39. http://doi.org/10.1145/1322432.1322433
Bezerianos, A., Dragicevic, P., Fekete, J. D., Bae, J., & Watson, B. (2010). GeneaQuilts: A system for exploring large genealogies. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6), 1073–1081. http://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2010.159
Buerli, M., & Obispo, C. (2012). The Current State of Graph Databases. Technical Report Department of Computer Science, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Retrieved from http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/cannata/dbms/Class Notes/08 Graph_Databases_Survey.pdf
Chickerur, S., Goudar, A., & Kinnerkar, A. (2015). Comparison of Relational Database with Document-Oriented Database (MongoDB) for Big Data Applications. 2015 8th International Conference on Advanced Software Engineering & Its Applications (ASEA), 41–47. http://doi.org/10.1109/ASEA.2015.19
Corbellini, A., Mateos, C., Zunino, A., Godoy, D., & Schiaffino, S. (2016). Persisting big-data: The NoSQL landscape. Information Systems, 63. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2016.07.009
Hamid, S., Rezapour, M., Moradi, M., & Ghadiri, N. (2015). Performance evaluation of SQL and MongoDB databases for big e-commerce data. In 2015 International Symposium on Computer Science and Software Engineering (CSSE) (pp. 1–7).
Han, J., Haihong, E., Le, G., & Du, J. (2011). Survey on NoSQL database. Proceedings - 2011 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Applications, ICPCA 2011, 363–366. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICPCA.2011.6106531
Jaiswal, G., & Agrawal, A. P. (2015). Comparative analysis of Relational and graph databases. IJIACS International Journal of Innovations & Advancement in Computer Science, 4, 181–183. Retrieved from http://www.ijsce.org/attachments/File/v2i2/B0625042212.pdf
Jung, M., Youn, S., Bae, J., & Choi, Y. (2015). A Study on Data Input and Output Performance Comparison of MongoDB and PostgreSQL in the Big Data Environment. In 2015 8th International Conference on Database Theory and Application (DTA) (pp. 14–17). http://doi.org/10.1109/DTA.2015.14
Kaliyar, R. (2015). Graph Databases : A Survey. International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA2015), 785–790. http://doi.org/10.1109/CCAA.2015.7148480
Leavitt, N. (2010). Will NoSQL Databases Live Up to Their Promise? Computer, 43(2), 12–14.
Li, Y., & Manoharan, S. (2013). A performance comparison of SQL and NoSQL databases. In IEEE Pacific RIM Conference on Communications, Computers, and Signal Processing - Proceedings (pp. 15–19). http://doi.org/10.1109/PACRIM.2013.6625441
Momjian, B. (2001). PostgreSQL: Introduction and Concepts. Upper Saddle River: Addison-Wesley.
Papamanthou, C. (2004). Depth First Search & Directed Acyclic Graphs. Departement of Computer Science University of Crete.
Pokorný, J. (2015). Graph Databases: Their Power and Limitations. In Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management (pp. 58–69). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24369-6_5
Robinson, I., Webber, J., & Eifrem, E. (2015). Graph Databases. (M. Beaugureau, Ed.) (2nd ed.). Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, Inc. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407192-6.00003-0
Ruohonen, K. (2013). Graph theory. Tampere University of Technology.
Shimpi, D. (2013). An overview of Graph Databases. IJCA Proceedings on International Conference on Recent Trends in Information Technology and Computer Science 2012, ICRTITCS(3), 16–22.
Ujibashi, Y., Nakamura, M., Tabaru, T., Hashida, T., Kawaba, M., & Harada, L. (2015). Design of a Shared Memory Mechanism for Efficient Paralell Processing in PostgreSQL. In 2015 6th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA) (pp. 1–6).
Vicknair, C., Macias, M., Zhao, Z., Nan, X., Chen, Y., & Wilkins, D. (2010). A comparison of a graph database and a relational database. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Southeast Regional Conference on ACM SE 10, 1. http://doi.org/10.1145/1900008.1900067
Wilson, R. J. (1996). Introduction to Graph Theory (Fourth edi). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Zhao, G., Huang, W., Liang, S., & Tang, Y. (2013). Modeling MongoDB with relational model. Proceedings - 4th International Conference on Emerging Intelligent Data and Web Technologies, EIDWT 2013, 115–121. http://doi.org/10.1109/EIDWT.2013.25
Zikopoulos, P., Eaton, C., & DeRoos, D. (2012). Understanding big data. New York et al: McGraw …. http://doi.org/1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright of this journal is assigned to Jurnal Buana Informatika as the journal publisher by the knowledge of author, whilst the moral right of the publication belongs to author. Every printed and electronic publications are open access for educational purposes, research, and library. The editorial board is not responsible for copyright violation to the other than them aims mentioned before. The reproduction of any part of this journal (printed or online) will be allowed only with a written permission from Jurnal Buana Informatika.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
