arXiv preprint ·
Graph Memory for LLM Agents: At What Cost? A Comparative Evaluation of Query, Ingest, and Update Performance Across Graph Database Engines
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Graph databases are frequently positioned as categorically necessary for connected-data workloads, yet the systems dimension along which they actually differ - query planning, indexing, and data-readiness cost - is rarely isolated from vendor framing. We construct a synthetic, biomedical-shaped property graph (1.02 million nodes, 5.34 million total node and edge rows) and a twenty-query workload spanning neighborhood lookups, bounded paths, set intersections, anti-joins, grouped aggregation, top-k ranking, temporal filters, full scans, and relational joins. We benchmark Corvic AI - a purpose-built columnar query engine underlying Corvic's ontology management layer ("memories")- against seven purpose-built or graph-extension database systems (LoraDB, Ladybug, DuckPGQ, Memgraph, Neo4j, HugeGraph, and FalkorDB) at three graph scales spanning three orders of magnitude. We report query latency geomeans, bulk-ingest throughput, point-update latency, and answer correctness for each system, and we derive a simple total-cost-of-ownership model that expresses the ingest/query trade-off as a function of query volume. Our central finding is that no system in this sample is categorically fastest: a native graph engine (Ladybug) outperforms Corvic AI on narrow, bounded-neighborhood shapes, while Corvic AI is faster on shapes that scan or join a large fraction of the graph, and a system implementing graph query syntax via SQL/PGQ (DuckPGQ) is measurably slower purely due to query-plan choice. The dominant cost differential in our data is not query latency but the cost of making data queryable at all: bulk-ingest throughput varies by three orders of magnitude across engines (5.0k-4.3M rows/s), a gap that a simple crossover-point calculation shows dominates total cost for any workload with fewer than roughly 105 queries per data refresh.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Databases
Data Agents: Agentic Data Systems
Mind the Gaps: A Curated Benchmark for Form Field Detection
IMPACT: Intent-driven Multi-agent Policy with Attention for SLO-guaranteed Microservice Migration in Cloud-edge Systems
An Iterative LangGraph Agent for Text-to-SQL: Natural Language Access to the Chicago Crime Database
AkasicMEM: Governed Enterprise Memory for Agents
Get the few papers worth your time in Databases every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.