Re: Low-hanging fruit for JanusGraph


> Related to this area, I think the "hands-off-the-backend" approach that the Titan project took should be ditched.

I've heard this sentiment before, but my guess is that it will be a while before it gets entertained. That being said, I think it's an interesting topic that would be better discussed over on janusgraph-dev.

-- Jason

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 8:59:24 PM UTC-5, Adam Phelps wrote:
On 1/19/17 1:06 PM, Austin Sharp wrote:
> 4. Handle supernodes better, for instance by streaming - i.e., when
> traversing over edges, don't pull all edges in from Cassandra at once.
> This is my personal bugbear - we keep having to change our schema and
> use indices or properties when edges are by far the best fit for the
> model, because Titan can easily blow through the Cassandra frame size
> even if you set up vertex partitioning to split adjacency lists, among
> other issues.

This is a big one for us as well, and while we have stuck with a schema
that allows supernodes we've made all sorts of work arounds in our java
code which accesses Titan.

Although in our case we're dealing with HBase underneath, and so the
limits are somewhat different.  However similar solutions should be
applicable to any backend, either by changing the row structure or by
having the clients page through the results with multiple calls.

Related to this area, I think the "hands-off-the-backend" approach that
the Titan project took should be ditched.  For systems like this
installing custom HBase filters, co-processors, etc can be hugely
beneficial in terms of performance.  From talking to the Datastax folks
about their new graph product it sounds like they've done a lot to
integrate the graph DB with the Casandra nodes themselves, and I think a
similar approach will be needed to move JanusGraph forward.

- Adam

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.