Graph Memory for LLM Agents: At What Cost? A Comparative Evaluation of Query, Ingest, and Update Performance Across Graph Database Engines

Title:Graph Memory for LLM Agents: At What Cost? A Comparative Evaluation of Query, Ingest, and Update Performance Across Graph Database Engines

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.

Databases (cs.DB); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

I.2.1; I.2.7; I.2.8

arXiv:2609.23315 [cs.DB]

(or arXiv:2609.23315v1 [cs.DB] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.23315 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.