Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 34:
== Benchmarking multi-model databases ==
As more and more platforms are proposed to deal with multi-model data, there are a few works on benchmarking multi-model databases. For instance, UniBench<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chao Zhang, Jiaheng Lu, Pengfei Xu, Yuxing Chen|first=|date=|title=UniBench: A Benchmark for Multi-Model Database Management Systems|url=https://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/jilu/documents/UniBench.pdf|journal=TPCTC 2018|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chao Zhang, Jiaheng Lu|first=|date=|title=Holistic evaluation in multi-model databases benchmarking|url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10619-019-07279-6|journal=Distributed and Parallel Databases (2019)|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref> proposed the first multi-model database benchmark, reviewed existing multi-model databases and made an evaluation effort towards comparing different multi-model databases. Specifically, UniBench pointed out that the advantages of multi-model databases over single-model databases are as follows : (i) they are able to ingest a variety of data formats such as CSV( including Graph, Relational), JSON into storage without any additional efforts, (ii) they can employ a unified query language such as AQL, Orient SQL, SQL/XML, SQL/JSON to retrieve correlated multi-model data, such as graph-JSON-key/value, XML-relational, and JSON-relational in a single platform. (iii) they are able to support multi-model ACID transactions in the stand-alone mode.
== Architecture ==
| |||