Dealing with large graphs
When approaching a use case or an analysis, it is very important to understand how large the data we focus on is or will be in the future, as the dimension of the datasets may very well impact both the technologies we use and the analysis that we can do. As already mentioned, some of the approaches that have been developed on small datasets hardly scale to real-world applications and larger datasets, making them useless in practice.
When dealing with (possibly) large graphs, it is crucial to understand potential bottlenecks and limitation of the tools, technologies, and/or algorithms we use, assessing which part of our application/analysis may not scale when increasing the number of nodes or edges. Even more importantly, it is crucial to structure a data-driven application, however simple or at early proof of concept (POC) stages, in a way that would allow its scaling out in the future when data/users would increase, without rewriting the whole application.
Creating a data-driven application that resorts to graphical representation/modeling is a challenging task that requires a design and implementation that is a lot more complicated than simply importing networkx. In particular, it is often useful to decouple the component that processes the graph—named graph processing engine—from the one that allows querying and traversing the graph—the graph storage layer. We will further discuss these concepts in Chapter 9, Building a Data-Driven Draft-Powered Application. Nevertheless, given the focus of the book on ML and analytical techniques, it makes sense to focus more on graph processing engines than on graph storage layers. We therefore find it useful to provide you already at this stage with some of the technologies that are used for graph processing engines to deal with large graphs, crucial when scaling out an application.
In this respect, it is important to classify graph processing engines into two categories (that impact the tools/libraries/algorithms to be used), depending whether the graph can fit a shared memory machine or requires distributed architectures to be processed and analyzed.
Note that there is no absolute definition of large and small graphs, but it also depends on the chosen architecture. Nowadays, thanks to the vertical scaling of infrastructures, you can find servers with random-access memory (RAM) larger than 1 terabyte (TB) (usually called fat nodes), and with tens of thousands of central processing units (CPUs) for multithreading in most cloud-provider offerings, although these infrastructures might not be economically viable. Even without scaling out to such extreme architectures, graphs with millions of nodes and tens of millions of edges can nevertheless be easily handled in single servers with ~100 gigabytes (GB) of RAM and ~50 CPUs.
Although networkx is a very popular, user-friendly, and intuitive library, when scaling out to such reasonably large graphs it may not be the best available choice. networkx, being natively written in pure Python, which is an interpreted language, can be substantially outperformed by other graph engines fully or partly written in more performant programming languages (such as C++ and Julia) and that make use of multithreading, such as the following:
- SNAP (http://snap.stanford.edu/), which we have already seen in the previous section, is a graph engine developed at Stanford and is written in C++ with available bindings in Python.
- igraph (https://igraph.org/) is a C library and features bindings in Python, R, and Mathematica.
- graph-tool (https://graph-tool.skewed.de/), despite being a Python module, has core algorithms and data-structures written in C++ and uses OpenMP parallelization to scale on multi-core architectures.
- NetworKit (https://networkit.github.io/) is also written in C++ with OpenMP boost for parallelization for its core functionalities, integrated in a Python module.
- LightGraphs (https://juliagraphs.org/LightGraphs.jl/latest/) is a library written in Julia that aims to mirroring
networkxfunctionalities in a more performant and robust library.
All the preceding libraries are valid alternatives to networkx when achieving better performance becomes an issue. Improvements can be very substantial, with speed-ups varying from 30 to 300 times faster, with the best performance generally achieved by LightGraphs.
In the forthcoming chapters, we will mostly focus on networkx in order to provide a consistent presentation and provide the user with basic concepts on network analysis. We want you to be aware that other options are available, as this becomes extremely relevant when pushing the edge from a performance standpoint.
