Comparative analysis of the performance of PostgreSQL and Neo4j databases in the context of genealogical queries
Article Sidebar
Issue Vol. 40 (2026)
-
Analysis of the capabilities of predictive artificial intelligence models in corporate risk management
Kacper Ziemski188-192
-
Usability and availability of selected e-commerce services
Marcin Kozicki, Maria Skublewska-Paszkowska193-200
-
Comparison of C++ and Python performance based on selected algorithms
Szymon Bogucki, Kacper Burda201-205
-
Security analysis of selected web applications using vulnerability scanners
Mariusz Choroś, Marta Dziuba-Kozieł206-212
-
Comparison of Java and .NET reflection mechanisms for dynamic module loading: a performance benchmark study
Michał Mazur, Sebastian Maruszak, Marek Miłosz213-217
-
Comparative analysis of network vulnerability detection tools
Mateusz Zdunek218-225
-
Evaluation of mobile applications for personal finance management using the MARS scale
Łukasz Nikiel, Artsiom Patskevich, Marek Miłosz226-231
-
Comparison of the effectiveness of roulette betting strategies using Monte Carlo simulation
Marek Sarnecki232-238
-
Analysis of optimization capabilities of selected database management systems
Paweł Tarkiewicz, Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik239-246
-
Comparative analysis of Espresso and Appium frameworks for automated UI testing of Android mobile applications
Jakub Derkacz247-254
-
Comparative analysis of the applicability of artificial intelligence models for code generation
Patryk Warchoł, Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik255-262
-
Comparison of the effectiveness of selected tools for detecting texts generated by artificial intelligence
Marcin Brodacki, Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik263-269
-
Comparative analysis of selected containerization tools in terms of MCP
Paweł Jan Tłusty, Maciej Pańczyk270-276
-
SpikeCliff effect: empirical analysis of deterministic timing discontinuities in sponge-based XOF functions
Łukasz Wójcik, Stanisław Lota277-282
-
Comparison of AI agents for creating SQL queries
Julia Sierpień, Maria Skublewska-Paszkowska283-288
-
Comparative analysis of the performance of PostgreSQL and Neo4j databases in the context of genealogical queries
Michał Muzyka, Mateusz Niedźwiedź, Marek Miłosz289-296
-
Evaluation of the effectiveness of static and dynamic methods in malware analysis
Dominik Tracz, Daniel Sawicki, Konrad Gromaszek297-303
-
Comparison of classical machine learning methods in the task of obesity level classification
Paweł Biesaga, Paweł Powroźnik304-312
Main Article Content
Authors
Abstract
The modern digital age led to the creation of a field called digital genealogy. To this day there seems to be little consensus on which database approach is most suited for such environment; genealogical data remains overlooked in database research. This study examines whether the popular relational SQL database systems prove themselves to be more efficient than graph databases when operating on graph-like genealogical structures. The article analyses PostgreSQL and Neo4j database engines’ efficiency, comparing them across different sizes of genealogical datasets and types of operations on artificially generated data. Results show that an optimized SQL approach is generally faster and uses less memory than the graph-based counterpart, while requiring more disk space, in all tested cases.
Keywords:
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)
- Industry, Innovation, Technology and Infrastructure
References
[1] J. T. Harviainen, B.-C. Björk, Genealogy, GEDCOM, and popularity implications, Informaatiotutkimus 37(3) (2018) 4–14, https://doi.org/10.23978/inf.76066.
[2] The GEDCOM Standard Release 5.5.1, https://gedcom.io/specifications/ged551.pdf, [25.05.2026].
[3] P. Novotný, J. Wild, The relational modeling of hierarchical data in biodiversity databases, Database 2024 (2024) baae107, https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baae107.
[4] Storing Hierarchical Data in Relational Databases with SQL, https://adamdjellouli.com/articles/databases_notes/03_sql/09_hierarchical_data, [25.05.2026].
[5] W. Khan, T. Kumar, C. Zhang, K. Raj, A. M. Roy, B. Luo, SQL and NoSQL Database Software Architecture Performance Analysis and Assessments—A Systematic Literature Review, Big Data and Cognitive Computing 7(2) (2023) 97, https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7020097.
[6] FamilySearch: Huge Online Genealogical Database Driven by Cassandra, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XP62FPJUmk, [25.05.2026].
[7] A. Mhedhbi, P. Gupta, S. Khaliq, S. Salihoglu, A+ Indexes: Tunable and Space-Efficient Adjacency Lists in Graph Database Management Systems, In 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) (2021) 1464–1475, https://doi.org/10.1109/icde51399.2021.00130.
[8] D. A. Stumpf, Graphs for Genealogists, Journal of Genetic Genealogy 10(1) (2022) 101.003.
[9] DevOps at Findmypast: Postgres Database Upgrades, https://tech.findmypast.com/postgres-database-upgrades, [25.05.2026].
[10] GRAPHical Family Trees, https://tech.findmypast.com/graphical-family-tree, [25.05.2026].
[11] How AI Transformed Our PHP Upgrade Journey, https://medium.com/myheritage-engineering/how-ai-transformed-our-php-upgrade-journey-c4f96a09c840, [25.05.2026].
[12] Scaling Ancestry.com: Providing Billions of Personalized Hints, https://medium.com/ancestry-product-and-technology/scaling-ancestry-com-providing-billions-of-personalized-hints-2f1866b50001, [25.05.2026].
[13] SQLite4RootsMagic Wiki, https://sqlite4rootsmagic.groups.io/g/main/wiki, [25.05.2026].
[14] Using database API – Gramps, https://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php/Using_database_API, [25.05.2026].
[15] M. Lazarska, O. Siedlecka-Lamch, Comparative study of relational and graph databases, In 2019 IEEE 15th International Scientific Conference on Informatics (2019) 000363–000370, https://doi.org/10.1109/Informatics47936.2019.9119303.
[16] K. Srivastava, D. Jain, A. Kamdar, A. Yeole, D. Shah, S. Dadheech, Adaptivity in Role-Based Access Control During Stochastic Situations: A Comprehensive Study between Graph and Relational Databases, Journal of Computer Science 20(12) (2024) 1744–1752, https://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2024.1744.1752.
[17] F. Gong, Y. Ma, W. Gong, X. Li, C. Li, X. Yuan, Neo4j graph database realizes efficient storage performance of oilfield ontology, PLOS ONE 13(11) (2018) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207595.
[18] C. A. Győrödi, D. V. Dumşe-Burescu, D. R. Zmaranda, R. Ş. Győrödi, G. A. Gabor, G. D. Pecherle, Performance Analysis of NoSQL and Relational Databases with CouchDB and MySQL for Application's Data Storage, Applied Sciences 10(23) (2020) 8524, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10238524.
[19] D. Yedilkhan, A. Mukasheva, D. Bissengaliyeva, Y. Suynullayev, Performance analysis of scaling NoSQL vs SQL: A comparative study of MongoDB, Cassandra, and PostgreSQL, In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Smart Information Systems and Technologies (SIST) (2023) 479–483, https://doi.org/10.1109/SIST58284.2023.10223568.
[20] V. Filatov, P. Flis, B. Pańczyk, Storage efficiency comparison of UML models in selected database technologies, Journal of Computer Sciences Institute 12 (2019) 193–198, https://doi.org/10.35784/jcsi.437.
[21] P. C. Soares, R. Agra, F. N. B. De Souza, A. L. Queiroz, A comparative study between the performance of relational and graph databases applied to hierarchical queries, In 2023 18th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) (2023) 1–6, https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI58278.2023.10211435.
[22] P. Kotiranta, M. Junkkari, J. Nummenmaa, Performance of Graph and Relational Databases in Complex Queries, Applied Sciences 12(13) (2022) 6490, https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136490.
[23] P. Setialana, T. B. Adji, I. Ardiyanto, Perbandingan Performa Relational, Document-Oriented dan Graph Database Pada Struktur Data Directed Acyclic Graph, Jurnal Buana Informatika 8(2) (2017) 77–86, https://doi.org/10.24002/jbi.v8i2.1079
Article Details
Abstract views: 1

