Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

SoK: The Faults in our Graph Benchmarks (2404.00766v1)

Published 31 Mar 2024 in cs.DB

Abstract: Graph-structured data is prevalent in domains such as social networks, financial transactions, brain networks, and protein interactions. As a result, the research community has produced new databases and analytics engines to process such data. Unfortunately, there is not yet widespread benchmark standardization in graph processing, and the heterogeneity of evaluations found in the literature can lead researchers astray. Evaluations frequently ignore datasets' statistical idiosyncrasies, which significantly affect system performance. Scalability studies often use datasets that fit easily in memory on a modest desktop. Some studies rely on synthetic graph generators, but these generators produce graphs with unnatural characteristics that also affect performance, producing misleading results. Currently, the community has no consistent and principled manner with which to compare systems and provide guidance to developers who wish to select the system most suited to their application. We provide three different systematizations of benchmarking practices. First, we present a 12-year literary review of graph processing benchmarking, including a summary of the prevalence of specific datasets and benchmarks used in these papers. Second, we demonstrate the impact of two statistical properties of datasets that drastically affect benchmark performance. We show how different assignments of IDs to vertices, called vertex orderings, dramatically alter benchmark performance due to the caching behavior they induce. We also show the impact of zero-degree vertices on the runtime of benchmarks such as breadth-first search and single-source shortest path. We show that these issues can cause performance to change by as much as 38% on several popular graph processing systems. Finally, we suggest best practices to account for these issues when evaluating graph systems.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (85)
  1. Measurement and analysis of online social networks. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement, pages 29–42. ACM, 2007.
  2. The string database in 2011: functional interaction networks of proteins, globally integrated and scored. Nucleic Acids Research, 39:D561–D568, 11 2010.
  3. Graph theory and networks in biology. IET systems biology, 1(2):89–119, 2007.
  4. Route planning in transportation networks. In Algorithm engineering, pages 19–80. Springer, 2016.
  5. The ubiquity of large graphs and surprising challenges of graph processing. Proc. VLDB Endow., 11(4):420–431, oct 2018.
  6. One trillion edges: Graph processing at facebook-scale. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 8(12):1804–1815, 2015.
  7. Graphx: Graph processing in a distributed dataflow framework. In OSDI, volume 14, pages 599–613, 2014.
  8. Powergraph: Distributed graph-parallel computation on natural graphs. In Presented as part of the 10th {{\{{USENIX}}\}} Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation ({{\{{OSDI}}\}} 12), pages 17–30, 2012.
  9. Distributed graphlab: a framework for machine learning and data mining in the cloud. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 5(8):716–727, 2012.
  10. Ligra: a lightweight graph processing framework for shared memory. In ACM Sigplan Notices, volume 48, pages 135–146. ACM, 2013.
  11. Gemini: A computation-centric distributed graph processing system. In 12th {{\{{USENIX}}\}} Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation ({{\{{OSDI}}\}} 16), pages 301–316, 2016.
  12. Graphchi: Large-scale graph computation on just a pc. USENIX, 2012.
  13. Blaze: fast graph processing on fast ssds. In 2022 SC22: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC), pages 617–631. IEEE Computer Society, 2022.
  14. {{\{{GridGraph}}\}}:{{\{{Large-Scale}}\}} graph processing on a single machine using 2-level hierarchical partitioning. In 2015 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 15), pages 375–386, 2015.
  15. Graph500 benchmarks. https://graph500.org/.
  16. Graphchallenge.org: Raising the bar on graph analytic performance. In 2018 IEEE High Performance extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), pages 1–7, 2018.
  17. Graphalytics: A big data benchmark for graph-processing platforms. In Proceedings of the GRADES’15, page 7. ACM, 2015.
  18. A lightweight infrastructure for graph analytics. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 456–471. ACM, 2013.
  19. The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford InfoLab, 1999.
  20. SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection. http://snap.stanford.edu/data, June 2014.
  21. Jérôme Kunegis. Konect: the koblenz network collection. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, pages 1343–1350. ACM, 2013.
  22. What is twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, pages 591–600. AcM, 2010.
  23. Twitter Dataset from SNAP, SHA256: a8ea26e01be2d7d3bff29e4b80e3fac11deb83bb7c6 91552896e48e9f13098b1. 41.65M Vertices, 1.46B Edges. https://snap.stanford.edu/data/twitter-2010.html.
  24. R-mat: A recursive model for graph mining. In Proceedings of the 2004 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pages 442–446. SIAM, 2004.
  25. Realistic, mathematically tractable graph generation and evolution, using kronecker multiplication. In European conference on principles of data mining and knowledge discovery, pages 133–145. Springer, 2005.
  26. Kronecker graphs: An approach to modeling networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11(Feb):985–1042, 2010.
  27. Smooth kronecker: Solving the combing problem in kronecker graphs. In Proceedings of the 3rd Joint International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences & Systems (GRADES) and Network Data Analytics (NDA), pages 1–10, 2020.
  28. All-in-one: Graph processing in rdbmss revisited. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD ’17, page 1165–1180, New York, NY, USA, 2017. Association for Computing Machinery.
  29. A cost-based optimizer for gradient descent optimization. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD ’17, page 977–992, New York, NY, USA, 2017. Association for Computing Machinery.
  30. Parallel subgraph listing in a large-scale graph. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 625–636, 2014.
  31. Early experiences in using a domain-specific language for large-scale graph analysis. In First International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences and Systems, pages 1–6, 2013.
  32. Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy. In In Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM).
  33. Graphminesuite: Enabling high-performance and programmable graph mining algorithms with set algebra. Proc. VLDB Endow., 14(11):1922–1935, jul 2021.
  34. Flickr Image Relationships from SNAP. 106k Vertices, 2.31M Edges. http://snap.stanford.edu/data/web-flickr.html.
  35. Livemocha from SNAP. 104k Vertices, 2.2M Edges. http://snap.stanford.edu/data/web-flickr.html.
  36. Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets. In 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (sp 2008), pages 111–125. IEEE, 2008.
  37. Ryan Singel. Netflix cancels recommendation contest after privacy lawsuit, Jun 2017.
  38. The WebGraph framework I: Compression techniques. In Proc. of the Thirteenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2004), pages 595–601, Manhattan, USA, 2004. ACM Press.
  39. Layered label propagation: A multiresolution coordinate-free ordering for compressing social networks. In Sadagopan Srinivasan, Krithi Ramamritham, Arun Kumar, M. P. Ravindra, Elisa Bertino, and Ravi Kumar, editors, Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 587–596. ACM Press, 2011.
  40. Laboratory for web algorithmics. http://law.di.unimi.it/datasets.php. Accessed: 2020-02-22.
  41. Trilliong: A trillion-scale synthetic graph generator using a recursive vector model. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data, pages 913–928, 2017.
  42. Scalable simd-efficient graph processing on gpus. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques, PACT ’15, pages 39–50, 2015.
  43. An in-depth analysis of stochastic kronecker graphs. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 60(2):13, 2013.
  44. Dygraph: a dynamic graph generator and benchmark suite. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGMOD Joint International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences & Systems (GRADES) and Network Data Analytics (NDA), pages 1–8, 2022.
  45. Graphmat: High performance graph analytics made productive. Proc. VLDB Endow., 8(11):1214–1225, July 2015.
  46. Practice of streaming processing of dynamic graphs: Concepts, models, and systems. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2021.
  47. Llama: Efficient graph analytics using large multiversioned arrays. In 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 363–374. IEEE, 2015.
  48. Graphone: A data store for real-time analytics on evolving graphs. ACM Transactions on Storage (TOS), 15(4):1–40, 2020.
  49. Teseo and the analysis of structural dynamic graphs. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 14(6):1053–1066, 2021.
  50. Naiad: a timely dataflow system. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 439–455. ACM, 2013.
  51. SocLiveJournal Dataset from SNAP, SHA256: b554569a74a2bfb9c56a3bdc68e55eeb54f68320dc1 a3e7230718b03e6fb6e20. 4.84M Vertices, 68.99M Edges. https://snap.stanford.edu/data/soc-LiveJournal1.html.
  52. Uk-2007-05 dataset from Snap, MD5: 2ee454bf05cf0943abcaec2a9d4d33b5. 105.89M Vertices, 3.74B Edges. http://law.di.unimi.it/webdata/uk-2007-05/.
  53. Zenodo: research. shared. https://zenodo.org/. Accessed: 2023-07-26.
  54. The Dataverse Project: open source research data repository software. https://dataverse.org/. Accessed: 2023-07-26.
  55. Scalability! but at what cost? In HotOS, volume 15, pages 14–14. Citeseer, 2015.
  56. When is graph reordering an optimization? studying the effect of lightweight graph reordering across applications and input graphs. In 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC), pages 203–214, 2018.
  57. Speedup graph processing by graph ordering. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD ’16, page 1813–1828, New York, NY, USA, 2016. Association for Computing Machinery.
  58. Rabbit order: Just-in-time parallel reordering for fast graph analysis. In 2016 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), pages 22–31, 2016.
  59. Optimizing cache performance for graph analytics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.01362, 2016.
  60. Experiences with implementing landmark embedding in neo4j. In Proceedings of the 2nd Joint International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences & Systems (GRADES) and Network Data Analytics (NDA), pages 1–9, 2019.
  61. Patent Citation Dataset from SNAP, SHA256: a8ea26e01be2d7d3bff29e4b80e3fac11deb83bb7c6 91552896e48e9f13098b1. 3.77M Vertices, 16.52M Edges. https://snap.stanford.edu/data/cit-Patents.html.
  62. Scalable data-driven pagerank: Algorithms, system issues, and lessons learned. In European Conference on Parallel Processing, pages 438–450. Springer, 2015.
  63. Galois: Tutorial.
  64. Yudi Santoso. Triangle counting and listing in directed and undirected graphs using single machines. PhD thesis, 2018.
  65. Charalampos E Tsourakakis. Fast counting of triangles in large real networks without counting: Algorithms and laws. In 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pages 608–617. IEEE, 2008.
  66. Friendster dataset from SNAP, SHA256: bfbdc65a4af73e8732c8e1e2f55cc963a10894b12d3 143544d5e9932f3feea95. 65.60M Vertices, 1.80B Edges. https://snap.stanford.edu/data/com-Friendster.html.
  67. Extrav: Boosting graph processing near storage with a coherent accelerator. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 10(12):1706–1717, 2017.
  68. X-stream: Edge-centric graph processing using streaming partitions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 472–488. ACM, 2013.
  69. Gail: The graph algorithm iron law. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Irregular Applications: Architectures and Algorithms, IA¡sup¿3¡/sup¿ ’15, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Association for Computing Machinery.
  70. Sync or async: time to fuse for distributed graph-parallel computation. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming, PPoPP 2015, page 194–204, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Association for Computing Machinery.
  71. Sebastiano Vigna. Stanford matrix considered harmful. arXiv preprint arXiv:0710.1962, 2007.
  72. Benchmarking graph-processing platforms: a vision. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/SPEC international conference on Performance engineering, pages 289–292, 2014.
  73. Navigating the maze of graph analytics frameworks using massive graph datasets. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 979–990. ACM, 2014.
  74. Structured Parallel Programming: Patterns for Efficient Computation. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1st edition, 2012.
  75. Daniel Mawhirter and Bo Wu. Automine: Harmonizing high-level abstraction and high performance for graph mining. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP ’19, page 509–523, New York, NY, USA, 2019. Association for Computing Machinery.
  76. Gram: Scaling graph computation to the trillions. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, SoCC ’15, page 408–421, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Association for Computing Machinery.
  77. Gpop: A scalable cache- and memory-efficient framework for graph processing over parts. ACM Trans. Parallel Comput., 7(1), mar 2020.
  78. John Ousterhout. Always measure one level deeper. Commun. ACM, 61(7):74–83, jun 2018.
  79. The gap benchmark suite. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.03619, 2015.
  80. A survey of benchmarks for graph-processing systems. Graph Data Management: Fundamental Issues and Recent Developments, pages 163–186, 2018.
  81. Ldbc graphalytics. https://graphalytics.org/.
  82. The ldbc graphalytics benchmark, 2023.
  83. Streaming graph partitioning: an experimental study. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 11(11):1590–1603, 2018.
  84. The linked data benchmark council (ldbc): Driving competition and collaboration in the graph data management space. In TPCTC.
  85. Specification of different graphalytics competitions, 2018.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.