Talk:Graph database/Archive 1

03/01/2017

I think it's a laughable conflict of interest that the maintainer of this page is an Oracle employee and clearly favors Oracle databases and Java databases. Almost every single database is one of the two. And he is clearly pushing his own interest by not allowing a legitimate popular database on the page. It's an abuse of power and very petty. He should be ashamed of himself.

-Zane Hitchcox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwhitchcox (talk • contribs) 00:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

10/14/2016 attempt to undo edits from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=prev&oldid=725428050

to re add - and added information based on original pull request to add a secondary source. I found it very easy to find sources for gun. It's a terrible name, yes, because first gun registration database showed up for 'gun database' but rather 'javascript graph database' does show neo4j and gundb. several independant articles some better than others I could use as references.... or 'gundb' which has lists on stack overflow; it's certainly a thing that exists.

|- |Gun || 0.3.994 (Oct, 2016)
0.5 (TBD) ||Zlib,Apache2,MIT ||Javascript ||A realtime, decentralized, offline-first, graph database engine. Offline First! It doesn't differentiate between nodes and edges; edge is just a subclass of node; in code it would be 'class edge: node' So the intro to the article also still needs work; definatly seems like an arbitrary line to enforce. A relation could be like between two neurons with a synapse (vertices, edges) or two mating walls that just reference each other; or spouses that while their relation can be represented with a class 'relationship' could simple reference 'spouse' with no need for additional information on the relation. |-

− (Originally omitted because 'not graph database' would request more clarity on what that means... that you have to use the native language to build filters? ^[1])

from mark Nadal

https://gitter.im/amark/gun?at=5801c54278bd0d0363c54ade

I understand the need to be objective, and we should all promote that. However given that Michaelmalak is employed by Oracle, it makes him moderating this page on graph databases a conflict of interest (Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia). If we follow the very standard that you propose, we need to remove the following listed databases that have no citations on them: AllegroGraph, DEX, InfiniteGraph, MarkLogic, OpenCog, OntoText, Oracle Spatial, Oracle Big Spatial (why are there 2 Oracle products listed?), OrientDB, Profium, SAP, and Stardog, leaving us with only the following items remaining: BlazeGraph, Datastax, Neo4j, Sqrrl, and Teradata. That would be removing the majority of the list, which is ridiculous in the same way that removing GUN (or Arango, or Cayley, or others) does not make sense. It is a graph database (the G in GUN) and has enough stars on GitHub (https://github.com/amark/gun) to vet for its credibility/reputation. With this said, I am adding it back in so please do not undo.

Also Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia I'm kinda tired of fighting this battle; it's not my job. How do I Undid "revision 744278556 by D3x0r (talk) GUN was removed in August 2016 (see "Overhaul" in talk page). Before re-adding, provide a WP:SECONDARY source not a WP:PRIMARY one.) (undo | thank)"

I don't see how it was removed then, when it was removed earlier, when was it re-added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3x0r (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(I don't know how to 'talk' on 'talk') — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3x0r (talk • contribs) 06:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the disputed entry to the talk page for discussion. Regarding the entries in the list of graph databases, I agree with folks above that we should restrict to notable entries. Generally entries can be shown notable in one of two ways. One, an entry may have its own article and we can go to that article to verify that there are reliable sources WP:RS for the entry. Or two, an entry may have citations to reliable sources. Looking over the list at present, all the entries except Blazegraph, Gun, and Oracle Big Data Spatial and Graph have articles, and Sqrrl Enterprise has an article , but it is about the company, not the database. Blazegraph and Sqrrl Enterprise do have citations to reliable sources, however. That leaves Gun and Oracle Big Data Spatial and Graph as candidates for deletion from this list. I did a quick search for RS for both entries and came up empty. Stars on github don't qualify as a secondary reliable source of any depth for Gun and I was only able to find regurgitated press releases for the announcement of Oracle Big Data Spatial and Graph. Hence unless we can find RS for these, I would be inclined to delete both of them. --Mark viking (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Oracle Big Data Spatial & Graph, despite having a name lexically similar to Oracle Spatial & Graph, is a completely separate technology based on NoSQL, distributed processing, and property graphs (as opposed to storing RDF triples in an RDBMS). It's new, with GA in May, 2016, and there are no secondary sources that interview users of the product. The best secondary source I've found is one that has a specified author, but which does rely mostly on press releases. https://adtmag.com/articles/2015/05/15/oracle-spatial-graph.aspx I am still an employee of Oracle, so I will leave the editing or deletion of the entry to others. As for Sqrrl Enterprise, the cited article spends 50% of the time talking about the graph capabilities -- for a product that supports both RDBMS and graph uses cases, that's probably the best that can be hoped for. Michaelmalak (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(d3x0r) : work in progress... give us a little time — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3x0r (talk • contribs) 22:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Every time I enter a new Graph Database that our company has released, it seems that it keeps on getting deleted? May I know why? Are there guidelines that I'm missing? How can we find out who deleted it?

Thank you! Haikalpribadi (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion for #Disputed Gun graph database entry. To re-add, establish notability by either linking to a dedicated Wikipedia article about the database or providing a citation to a WP:SECONDARY source that is not merely a press release -- preferably an article that either interviews actual users of the database, compares to other databases, or discusses pros/cons in a balanced manner (that a press release would not). Michaelmalak (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Michaelmalak, I have finally complied with this requirement. Before I get to it, please try to understand my honest attempts to comply (because they seem to be being written off as me being some sort of spammer or troll):

1) First a reference to the project that "discusses pros/cons in a balanced manner" was required before inclusion. Complied: Added https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/CAP-Theorem (although it looks like they moved "considerations" section to a different page, see here: https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/Conflict-Resolution-with-Guns#considerations ). Inclusion was rejected and goal post was moved.

2) Then the requirement became (1) and (not or, as it had been explained before) a "preferably an article that either interviews actual users of the database" which EdJohnston also confirmed with "If GUN has actual users, has anyone published their experience, or" at User_talk:EdJohnston#Graph_Database. Notice the or usage (not and, which things got switched to). Complied: 2 independent user reviews: http://myrighttocode.org/blog/artificial%20intelligence/particle%20swarm/genetic%20algorithm/collective%20knowledge/machine%20learning/gun-db-artificial-knowledge-sharing , and https://medium.com/a-weekend-with/a-weekend-with-gun-a61fdcb8cc5d . Inclusion was rejected and goal post was moved.

3) Then the requirement became (2) and (not or) "notability and significance" which still remains fuzzy and opinion based. Complied: VC funding by billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce (http://angel.co/gun) and peer review by programmers on GitHub (https://github.com/amark/gun/stargazers) at 2900+ stars compared to Neo4j at 3100+ stars (https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/stargazers). Inclusion was accepted by one editor stating they were convinced (finally!) by the funding, but was rejected by others and goal post was moved.

4) Then the requirement was (2) and redefining "notability and significance" to "No prejudice to adding either one back in when independent reliable sources become available-reviews in the trade journals or respected new sites, books, etc." (note again the or in the statement, not an and). Complied: 2 links to separate popular programming news websites that had homepage landing community vetted upvotes,HackerNews https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9076558 and Reddit r/programming https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/57psx6/gun_a_realtime_decentralized_offlinefirst_graph/ . Inclusion was rejected and goal post was moved.

5) Then the requirement was (4) and trade journal sources by HighKing. Failed: I requested a precise definition of trade journal, to which the requirement was actually argued against "Trade Journals make for very poor references" yet simultaneously required with an arbitrary "If you've any issues with a reference that is in use, let me know and I'll look at it for you." I pointed out how logically this was an irrational standard not based on policy and things went downhill.

6) Finally I felt like EdJohnston helped restore order and discussion and clarified things. To which I have now reattempted to Comply to (5) with: 1 citation to the same source and author as accepted as a Neo4j source - GunDB was included in a curated list by http://highscalability.com/blog/2016/3/25/stuff-the-internet-says-on-scalability-for-march-25th-2016.html . No verdict yet. I hope no goal post is moved.

7) I noticed that there was still an outstanding or requirement of "establish notability by either linking to a dedicated Wikipedia article about the database" and have put good faith in to Comply: Added a GunDB page as requested where I found a ton of new qualified sources while researching the history and development of GunDB, including academic connections that EdJohnston had as a "or" requirement - GunDB which was approved by an independent reviewer, No1lakersfan, with UCLA, WSJ, AllThingsD, and the Kauffman Foundation as some of the new citations. No verdict yet, however HighKing immediately accosted me of "Creating this article is a sign of disruptive editing and not getting it." (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GunDB#GunDB) with an attempt to delete - I really hope this doesn't cause another disruption as I feel like things were finally getting settled down again.

To conclude, I hope this presented a reasonable explanation of why inclusion is now over qualified compared to other Open Source databases currently listed. Or at least that you and others could recognize my honest efforts in trying to comply. Thank you. Tmobii (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

What you are consistently failing to get/accept is that there is *every* source you use *must* be a reliable source and therefore must meet the criteria. Please stop continually complaining that goal posts are being moved or have been moved - the reality is that you have not read the policies and guidelines and you're relying on a tactic of insisting to us what must be accepted. If you would just take a breath and read what we've been telling you and the accompanying policies and guidelines, we wouldn't have to keep repeating ourselves. I've already posted an explanation why each and every one of your sources fails WP:RS at the GunGB AfD page so I really don't understand why you are ignoring everything said there and posting all of this here again. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There has been a reply since yesterday, so no worries, I'm not ignoring you. Thanks for taking the time to reply and adding your input to this! I would also love to hear feedback from User:Michaelmalak and User:Kgfleischmann. Particularly Michaelmalak, as he recommended a dedicated Wikipedia page would be good enough for list inclusion - hoping to hear his feedback. Trying to comply! Tmobii (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Now that GunDB has its own Wikipedia article, it meets the criteria for inclusion in this article, in my opinion. Michaelmalak (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Michaelmalak, thank you for all the time you have spent going back and forth with me. I will wait and hear back from the remaining others as well, but if there are no further major reasons for oppositions in the next day or two, I'll attempt to re-add GunDB back into the list with this as the permission to do so (if you think I shouldn't, just let me know). Thank you for hearing this through and helping me improve my sources/edits. Tmobii (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Michaelmalak is correct in pointing out that GunDB has its own article and that we normally use this as a measure of whether a product/company passes the notability criteria. But please note that there is no *rule* that states that products with articles are *automatically* notable. Tmobii, you especially are aware that the GunDB article has been nominated for deletion and that it has been pointed out to you that the references you provided in the article fail to denote notabaility. For that reason, do not add GunDB back into the article here unless there is a clear consensus to do so and pending the result of the AfD. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you point me towards any policy that requires that? I definitely respect the view, but it would be nice to hear another editor's thoughts instead since you started the AfD. Could User:Kgfleischmann weigh in, I believe his guidance would be beneficial, now that we have already heard from Michaelmalak? Tmobii (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be confused. The only policy we're discussing is WP:N. And I know you're aware of WP:RS guidelines also. There is nothing in policy that states "if an article exists on a topic, that topic is automatically notable". And since your GunDB article has been nominated for deletion based on lack of notability and sources that do not meet the criteria in the WP:RS guideline, I (and several others involved in this discussion) believe your product fails notability. Nothing has changed since we explicitly discussed your product previously. You opened an RfC on whether GitHub stars could be considered towards denoting notability but this does not look like it will be accepted. I would also add that even if it was, the number of GitHub stars we might use as a baseline for consideration would more than likely be thousands and would therefore also exclude your product. Even though we had examined the sources you put forward here and explained how those sources fail WP:RS for one reason or another, you then created a GunDB article using sources with the exact same problems. The entire AfD page is then filled with your arguments where you either don't bother to read the policy or guidelines, or you try to argue your way around it, or you argue why a source meets some other criteria and ignore the reasons it fails others. Given that background, it is very underhanded to come back to this article with an argument based on the existence of an article on GunDB as a measure of notability.

You appear unflaggingly reluctant to accept the consensus and their shared point of view. You've argued the same points repeatedly and you are clearly unwilling to accept what is contained in the policies and guidelines. You have adopted an approach that the opinion of anyone who has taken the time to help you (yes ... *help* you) is unwelcome. But at some point (really soon) you need to change your approach as it is disruptive. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination was done by you, for deletion, and you have done that with other pages and gotten overruled (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ArangoDB&diff=737874348&oldid=737850961), please remember Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers in your interactions with me.

Notability (Wikipedia:GNG) has been addressed with new sources (that I found after the sources I listed here for list inclusion) with multiple independent verifiable and reliable sources that had significant and presumed coverage from UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD, please see the AfD where I take time to explain the notability.

Neo4j, GunDB (proof: https://github.com/amark/gun), ArangoDB, OrientDB all have thousands of stars - what is your point?

Per policy, Wikipedia:AFDEQ, is about discussion and argumentation. Tmobii (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a good policy to wait for the result of the AfD ... . --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Kgfleischmann, I trust your input on this and will wait. Tmobii (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Kgfleischmann, what further requirements need to be complied with? (1,2,3,4,6) Have been covered. The databases that don't have their own pages (Blazegraph, Cayley) cite TechTarget, InfoWorld, and Eweeks (publications that I personally haven't heard of), do any publications like those or "more notable" count? Tmobii (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You have already been told 5 or 6 times that the sources have to meet the requirements in WP:RS. Seeing as you know this, can you explain why you think 1. "has been covered" given the result of your RfC below? And why 2. is covered given that they are blogs (and fail WP:RS? Or that you still consider 3. is covered given that it has been explained to you multiple times that the viewpoints of investors are not regarded as "independent" (as per WP:RS)? Or that 4. has been covered given that both your YCombinator and reddit links are the very definition of "user contributions" and therefore fail WP:RS. Or that 6. is a blog and fails WP:RS. The goalposts have never moved. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

A question was asked, you did not answer it (nor was the question for you). So Eweeks, InfoWorld, TechTarget are good examples for WP:RS then? Sweet, I'll look for sources like that (UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/Kauffman Foundation/AllThingsD seemed more WP:RS, but I guess I'll lower my standards to match your requirements). Tmobii (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Article Talk pages are public and not the place to have private discussions. You can post a question on Kgfleischmann's Talk page if you wish to ask for only that editor's opinion. Nevertheless, your post suggests that you now accept that none of the references you posted meet the criteria in WP:RS. But it is worrying to see you continue to assert/insist that *any* reference from the list ((UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/Kauffman Foundation/AllThingsD) are automatically good references. That may not be the case. The references still need to meet WP:RS. So, for example, if the WSJ contained an interview with someone connected with your company, that would still be considered a primary source for any of the facts in the article. Or, for example, if Forbes publishes a press release, even though the publication is viewed as a reliable source, that article would not meet the criteria in WP:RS. The WP:RS criteria exists whether you want to create a new standalone article or whether you want to include your article in a list within an article. The other products are in the list because there is *one* single reference that meets the criteria in WP:RS and acknowledges that the product is a graph database. If you can find one single source that meets the criteria in WP:RS for GunDB, the we can also add GunDB. Your tone in your response above suggests to me that you are frustrated but those are the same goalposts that have always been in place and they haven't moved. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion history is right there, and (1-7) is a good summary with quotes. Reflecting on tone is dangerous online, you are free to do it but it will cause you to misread my statements - I encourage you, as you suggested, to discuss this with me on my Talk page. Of the 5 mentioned, only 1 was an interview with the founder, elsewise WP:RS is met yet I'm more than happy to also find you sources like Eweeks (something which I have never heard of compared to WSJ and institutions like UCLA). This is a good faith attempt on my behalf, but will also hold you accountable to what you have said. Cheers! Tmobii (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you can't grasp WP:RS. It has been patiently explained numerous times. Your continued repeating, over and over, of references for GunDB that have been shown to fail WP:RS is tendentious and disruptive to the project. It is not "good faith" to deliberately and repeatedly miss the point. If you continue with this style of editing or continue to assert points that are variations of previous points that have been asked and answered, I will ask an administrator to block you from this article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Threatening to block, again? This is Wikipedia, WP:ETIQ, respectfully dialoging with others is a must, it is not a platform to censors those who disagree with you. Tmobii (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Graph database has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Microsoft Graph as one of the notable graph databases; details at

https://graph.microsoft.io

Add the text below (extracted from the site) to describe

Microsoft Graph exposes multiple APIs from Office 365 and other Microsoft cloud services through a single endpoint: https://graph.microsoft.com. Microsoft Graph simplifies queries that would otherwise be more complex. 193.61.255.83 (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are sure, Microsoft Graph is notable, write article about it. I take care, it will be added.--Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"Microsoft Graph: in April 2015 Microsoft launched the preview of the Microsoft Graph as the unified API endpoint for its productivity services under Office 365 and Azure AD" does not really sound like a graph database. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Microsoft Graph has nothing to do with Graph databases. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: No consensus to add. — Sam Sailor 00:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

To add to previous request, https://graph.microsoft.io/en-us/docs says...

You can use Microsoft Graph to:

Access data from multiple Microsoft cloud services, including Azure Active Directory, Exchange Online as part of Office 365, SharePoint, OneDrive, OneNote, and Planner. Navigate between entities and relationships.

The diagram and narrative shows it is a Graph [like] front end to the individual services (Exchange, SharePoint), and, more importantly, to "insights and relationships from Office Graph". Perhaps Office Graph is the graph database.

This is explained further in this support.office.com link

Not a DB guru or software developer, but Microsoft make increasingly frequent references to Office Graph. It is probably the case that Office Graph *IS* a graph database, and Microsoft Graph is a Graph-like query language (again, forgive my naivete) to both non-graph datastores (Exchange, SharePoint) and the Office Graph data store.

This is probably the biggest graph database that no one has ever heard of! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.105.83 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I reiterate, Microsoft Graph has nothing to do with Graph databases. Similarly, Office Graph has nothing to do with Graph databases. It is beyond the scope of this Talk page to provide you with a detailed response especially as you appear to have no prior knowledge of databases or Graph databases or web services or proxy gateways, etc. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: — Sam Sailor 02:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Hi there - I'd like to add GRAKN.AI (https://grakn.ai) to the list of graph databases on the article page. Disclaimer: I am a technical writer at the company.

References:

• http://tinkerpop.apache.org/providers.html
• http://db-engines.com/en/system/GRAKN.AI
• https://www.linux.com/blog/linux-foundation-welcomes-janusgraph
• https://github.com/graknlabs/grakn

Name: GRAKN.AI - Version: v0.10 - Licence: GPL v3 - Language: Java - Description: GRAKN.AI is a database in the form of a knowledge graph that uses machine reasoning to simplify data processing for AI applications.

And I would also suggest the addition of Graql (not GraphQL) which is the query language.

Please can you consider my request and let me know if it is acceptable? Stichbury (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Stichbury: In the future, you may place {{edit request}} to indicate such proposed edits with a conflict of interest; that places them in a special queue for veteran editors to review. I have done that for you. (I tend to think the entry is not notable enough to be added, but it is not a clear-cut case, so I will let a reviewer take this one.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Stichbury: I am leaning towards a 'deny of this request. There are not enough independent third-party articles (intellectually separate) to justify inclusion at this point in time. Has the product been reviewed in a third party publication? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @HighKing: Many thanks for getting back to me. I don't have a third party publication to include just yet, although expect to have something soon. I will wait for now and resubmit the request when there is more coverage in 3rd party publications for reference. Thanks again. Stichbury (talk)

I would like to remove every reference to SQL and relational databases. For one, the comparison is inaccurate, misleading, and plain wrong in some cases (I agree with a previous poster that this seems to have been written by marketing people for some Graph Database product). The other reason is that I did not come to this page wondering how graph databases compared to relational ones, I wanted to find out more about graph databases, period. Graph database people must really be insecure about their "graphiness" to feel the need to state over and over just how much better they are than relational in this versus that.

Also, why not talk about essentiality, in the graph database, it seems the node, the edge, and the property are all essential, meaning that without all three, information about something would not longer be derivable. This is not a good thing, as it certainly adds complexity and no additional expressive power. Not to mention the fact that in certain examples of graph database imply an ordering, and that ordering is also essential (again, without it, certain information is lost).

If I wanted marketing hype, I will go elsewhere, and I did not expect wikipedia to allow such biased, disgusting prose on its website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.124.211.150 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

   Technically, this sort of lookup is completed in O(log(n)) + O(1) time, that is, roughly relative to the logarithm of the size of the data. In contrast, the relational version would be multiple O(log(n)) lookups, plus more time to join all the data.

The above sentence from the article is very vague. On one hand, O(log(n)) + O(1) is equal to O(log(n)), and "multiple lookups plus more time" is just too vague. Is it a constant multiple and a constant time? Then it's just O(log(n)) again. Is it a multiple depending on the depth of the relation, then you need a second variable (as not everything can be expressed in relation to the DB size).

When using Big-O notation, it should at least be used in a theoretical correct way as intended IMO. If it's not needed to be theoretical correct (but f.e. rather show empirical results), then it should use a different notation. --2A02:1811:C50F:A500:C52:BE35:D390:71FA (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I propose that the Network model and Graph database articles be merged together for the following reasons: 1) They are conceptually the same thing 2) The network model may be considered a historical version of what is now commonly referred to as the graph database 3) There is not enough content on the Network model page to be considered good quality, it may be better to have a single, better quality page than two distinct articles with closely related themes 4) Although implementation details may differ and graph databases offer more flexibility than traditional network model databases, this does not preclude them from being considered in the same family of databases

Strongly disagree. The network (Codasyl) model handles a very specific kind of graph, it relies on a strict schema, and it has a defined data manipulation language. They are not all conceptually the same thing. Mhkay (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Mhkay that this should not be merged with the network model page. Graph databases are specific type of datastore whereas the network model is a specific type of methodology for modeling data within a datastore. The network model is a conceptual model of how you can model and represent your data in a flexible manner of a graph whereas a graph database implements a data store that uses fundamental graph structures as the underlying data structures. Bechbd (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what Mhkay and Bechbd have said, consider the pedigree of modern graph databases. It seems like quite a stretch to say that Neo4j -- to take one example -- is related to CODASYL, whereas it is closely related to the Semantic Web effort that was in full swing at the time of its creation. Joshsh (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A few more details to clarify the issue (some more information about these disputed edits can be found at User talk:Anthonyse3): Ref #34 is a low-quality advertorial, almost entirely based on interview quotes and information from the developing company. Ref #36 is an opinion piece in a blog, where the author transparently discloses a personal connection to the company. Neither of these sources qualifies as truely independent and reliable - 1-2 better sources are needed before the product could be considered for inclusion.

Other list entries may also be questionable, but should be discussed separately case by case. The possible existance of other problematic entries does not justify the addition of more of the same problems (see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Any civil feedback would be appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The provided source at is little more than a poorly-made blog by interns and freelancers, and fails to meet the criteria at WP:RS. Unless editors can provide a truely independent and reliable source with some coverage about this database, the entry fails the table's list inclusion criteria. Please discuss here instead of edit-warring and re-adding disputed content. GermanJoe (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am proposing to add JanusGraph into the article. It is a free, open source, distributed graph database under Apache Software License 2.0. It is supported by Linux Foundation. Oleksandr porunov (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This list is of notable graph database systems and at present Janusgraph does not have a Wikipedia entry. Please write a draft article about Janusgraph and get it through review, then it can be added here. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The first version of JanusGraph article has been approved and placed in the main space. The article can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JanusGraph. I am proposing to add it into the list of notable graph database systems. The information is below:
Name: JanusGraph; Version: 0.3.0 (July 2018)^[1]; License: Apache 2; Language: Java; Description: Open source, scalable, distributed across a multi-machine cluster graph database under The Linux Foundation; supports various storage backends (Apache Cassandra, Apache HBase, Google Cloud Bigtable, Oracle BerkeleyDB)^[2]; supports global graph data analytics, reporting, and ETL through integration with big data platforms (Apache Spark, Apache Giraph, Apache Hadoop); supports geo, numeric range, and full-text search via external index storages (ElasticSearch, Apache Solr, Apache Lucene).^[3]

Does Dgraph^[1] warrant a mention? Perhaps this ^[2] comparing with neo4j may be helpful to make a case for inclusion.

I am proposing the inclusion of Dgraph to the list of graph databases.

The SQL example query can be translated in GraphQL+-, query language of Dgraph as shown below.^[9]

{
    friendsOfJack(func: eq(name, "Jack")) {
        friend {
            name
        }
    }
}

Prashant Shahi (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph of this article begins with the sentence: "Graph databases are part of the NoSQL databases created to address the limitations of the existing relational databases. "

This is fairly typical rhetorical spin. The sentence includes the assertion that existing relational databases have "limitations."

Now that may be so but unless each "limitation" is (a) listed and then (b) for each "limitation" there is an explanation of how a Graph Database "addresses" that limitation, then the only "meaning" of this sentence is to disparage "relational databases" by planting the negative idea that they have "limitations" in the mind of a gullible reader. Ken Evans 20:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ken evans (talk • contribs)

Yes. In the sense that graph databases preceded relational systems and can't be said therefore to have been created to address their (supposed) limitations.80.41.76.129 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

@EdJohnston, Michaelmalak, Tigraan, and HighKing: Please add the following entry to the list (see table below).

Hope I've provided sufficient references, in particular the DB-engines list. If needed, I can provide lots of news including direct client references. Eg see

Google Books:

• shows it's used in a wide variety of domains
• are there really 500 books that mention it? Checked the first 10-15, all of them do

Google Scholar

• shows about 250 research articles that mention it

Google News (search for Ontotext, not Ontotext GraphDB):

• http://www.kmworld.com/BuyersGuide/Ontotext-USA-Inc.-6414.aspx
• https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180628005581/en/Global-Graph-Database-Market-Type-Application-Component
• https://www.zdnet.com/article/graph-databases-and-rdf-its-a-family-affair/
• http://www.techyounme.com/semantic-knowledge-discovery-software-market-lucrative-opportunities-across-globe/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2015/04/06/the-hype-around-graph-databases-and-why-it-matters/
• https://minutehack.com/opinions/halo-effect-how-online-publishers-can-draw-from-video-games

Disclaimer: I work for Ontotext --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

By "research articles", I believe that the ones requested here are peer reviewed articles, which I don't see any that you've listed. My search found a few which mention Ontotext GraphDB, and the COI editor should review them to see if any may be used to establish notability for inclusion in this table.

1. Bontcheva, Kalina; Rout, Dominic; Greenwood, Mark A.; Roberts, Ian; Maynard, Diana (2017). "A Framework for Real-Time Semantic Social Media Analysis". Social Science Research Network. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3199300.
2. Rodríguez-Muro, Mariano; Rezk, Martin (1 August 2015). "Efficient SPARQL-to-SQL with R2RML mappings". Journal of Web Semantics. 33: 141–169. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2015.03.001. ISSN 1570-8268.
3. Bassiliades, Nick; Symeonidis, Moisis; Gouvas, Panagiotis; Kontopoulos, Efstratios; Meditskos, Georgios; Vlahavas, Ioannis (1 January 2018). "PaaSport semantic model: An ontology for a platform-as-a-service semantically interoperable marketplace". Data & Knowledge Engineering. 113: 81–115. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2017.11.001. ISSN 0169-023X.
4. Galgonek, Jakub; Hurt, Tomáš; Michlíková, Vendula; Onderka, Petr; Schwarz, Jan; Vondrášek, Jiří (6 June 2016). "Advanced SPARQL querying in small molecule databases". Journal of Cheminformatics. 8 (1): 31. doi:10.1186/s13321-016-0144-4. ISSN 1758-2946.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
5. Blanke, Tobias; Bryant, Michael; Frankl, Michal; Kristel, Conny; Speck, Reto; Daelen, Veerle Vanden; Horik, René Van (2017). "The European Holocaust Research Infrastructure Portal". J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 10 (1): 1:1–1:18. doi:10.1145/3004457. ISSN 1556-4673.

 Spintendo  19:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Vladimir Alexiev: If editing Wikipedia is part of your work duties (i.e. your employer directed you to make edits, even if it is not part of your job description), I suggest to use the template {{paid}} on your user page. The "disclaimer" above might be just enough to comply with our requirements for paid editors, but you will have to repeat it with every contribution.

I will not be reviewing your edit request either way since that is not something I usually do. There was no need to ping editors, just putting the {{edit request}} template puts it in the appropriate queue for specialized editors to review. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The COI editor is asked to peruse the provided journal articles above in order to determine if any of these may be used as supporting references for the claim. When ready to proceed, please alter the request edit template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no.  Spintendo  23:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Editing WP is not part of my work duties.

Thanks @Spintendo: for adding those references; I think that a lot more can be found at the Google Scholar link I provided. I took the liberty to copy 4 of them to the table row above, and add 3 more references --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Added 10-15 more references and a Zotero bibliography of papers mentioning GraphDB, which currently has 41 of the available 370 Scholar papers --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

At https://github.com/VladimirAlexiev/ontotext-graphdb-applications I made some analysis of 220 or so papers on Google Scholar that mention GraphDB and extracted 230 research topics (phrases) and made a word cloud --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence of this article is as follows: "A key concept of the system is the graph (or edge or relationship), which directly relates data items in the store a collection of nodes of data and edges representing the relationships between the nodes." 1. graph, edge or relationship are not synonyms 2. the sentence does not even grammatically make sense ("[...] the graph, which directly relates data items in the store a collection of nodes of data and edges [...]"). If I didn't knew what a graph or a graph database was, I wouldn't figure out, what this sentence wants to tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1640:2538:325A:3AFF:FE57:322F (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that a comma is missing, and that it's meant to say "A key concept of the system is the graph (or edge or relationship) which directly relates data items in the store, a collection of nodes of data and edges representing the relationships between the nodes."  Spintendo  23:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Some of the Graph databases listed have a long list of programming languages in the "Language" column, which seem to refer to the programming languages they provide database drivers for, and not the programming language in which the database is written. See for example Neo4j which is written in Java, but has drivers for different programming languages and lists them in that column. Or ArangoDB written in C++ but listing all its available programming interfaces. Any Tinkerpop-enabled database such as JanusGraph or amazon Neptune should then be referencing all the languages in which TinkerPop provides drivers for. The list of available open source drivers for TinkerPop is available here and includes:

• Python
• Ruby
• Java
• Go
• Elixir
• C# / .NET
• PHP
• Scala
• TypeScript

Additionally, DataStax Enterprise Graph, on top of being TinkerPop-enabled, provides its own set of database drivers optimized for it. So according to the logic in the other DBs' "Language" columns these languages should also be added to DataStax Enterprise Graph's column.

Alternatively, the "Language" column should only reference the language in which the database is written.

Disclaimer: I am a contributor to Apache TinkerPop, as well as software engineer for DataStax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newkek (talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to update the outdated version and release date of ArangoDB, but the page is locked?

If a page is locked, why isn't there some sort of obvious place to submit at least a suggestion for improvement?

Admittedly, this is I *think* my first attempt at editing a Wikipedia page, so maybe I am missing something. Needsloot (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Where the text says "properties such as website," it would probably be better to say "properties such as website URL," since "website" can imply an entity describing the website (e.g., with related entities being pages of the site), while "website URL" more strongly implies a string value.

(I can't edit that myself yet.)

Dsb765 (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Graph database has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the first sentence in the Background section from

   "Graph databases, on the other hand, portrays the data as it is viewed conceptually"
        to 
   "Graph databases portrays the data as it is viewed conceptually"

As this is the first sentence of the section, the comparative phrase 'on the other hand' is misplaced. 123.252.192.130 (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Graph database has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the list of known Graph Databases, please add TIBCO Graph Database, which has been released in 2016 Mashalkar (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 18:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a real DB - can it be included or is it insfficnetly notable - a very, very aribitary consideration and unfair to open source small guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everythingisnail (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved misplaced question to a separate section at the bottom.GermanJoe (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have explained this on your user talkpage - not all "existing" databases are listed, just notable ones (see also WP:GNG and WP:COI for more information). GermanJoe (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Include TerminusDB on the list of graph DBs.

It is an open source graph database with the code on github for all to see:

^[1]

Following a previous attempt to edit the article directly, I am now placing the request here. Since then the main wikipedia article has been accepted.

^[2]

There is a bunch of available evidence of it's existence on the web. Not sure what standard is required?

^{[3] [4] [5] [6]}

Thanks,

Everythingisnail (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@User:GermanJoe: TerminusDB was accepted at AfC two weeks ago, any objections to adding it now? Altamel (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Altamel, as an AfC reviewer has checked it, I have generally no objections in these cases. GermanJoe (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, GermanJoe.

TerminusDB

1.1.2 (2020)

GPLv3

Prolog, Rust, JSON-LD

Model driven graph database designed for knowledge graph representation

@Everythingisnail, can you confirm if the preceding table entry is correct? Altamel (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Altamel, looks perfect to me - thanks. And thanks to @User:GermanJoe for following up.

Everythingisnail (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Altamel (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. See below.

• What I think should be changed: Adding Tom Sawyer Perspectives to the section The following is a list of notable graph databases:. The information for Tom Sawyer is as follows: Name: Tom Sawyer Perspectives/ Version: 9.2.2 (March 2021)/ License: Proprietary/ Language: Java/ Description: Tom Sawyer Perspectives is a robust platform for building enterprise-class graph and data visualization and analysis applications. It is a complete graph visualization software development kit with a graphics-based design and preview environment. The platform integrates enterprise data sources with powerful graph visualization, layout, and analysis technology to solve big data problems.
• Why it should be changed: Because Tom Sawyer Perspectives is just as prominent as the other Graph Databases listed.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

[1]

^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]}

2806:10BE:C:E989:7CF9:673F:1A09:9E0F (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I have declined this request because the proposed wording is too promotional of a company. If you would like this added to the list, please propose neutrally worded text. Z1720 (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)