HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
microsoft
GraphEngine
C#2017–2019
microsoft / GraphEngine · Archived

GraphEngine

Microsoft Graph Engine

Systems & Infrastructure
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
4Distinct people
6Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2.3KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Microsoft Graph Engine

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month6 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2017-02-09 12:41:08 UTC to 2019-04-01 09:56:03 UTC.

01232017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 commentsFeb 20172017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsMar 20182018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsApr 2019

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Feb 20172017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC312
Mar 20172017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20172017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20172017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20172017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20172017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20172017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20172017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20172017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20172017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20172017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20182018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20182018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Apr 20182018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20182018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20182018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20182018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20182018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Sep 20182018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20182018-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20182018-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20182018-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20192019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20192019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20192019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-05-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

6 sources
v-yadli·Apr 1, 2019
(b) with a custom build step you can embed the pdb file into the assembly as embedded resource. not recommended though. the best practice I believe, is to supply a symbol package in parallel to a nuget package. _edit: there's also symbol server_ embedding debug symbols into assembly would be sometimes problematic, especially when you have public and private symbols -- signing three versions of the same assembly is not really a good idea. (a) (c) I can feel you.. But here's what I've done to this problem: 1. use cmake for the source tree. this way you don't have trouble opening the tree as a whole. 2. in visual studio you can have both the cmake view and a solution view -- you can open a solution right from the cmake view or switch to another. 3. in this way, a solution becomes a smaller unit to organize multiple projects together. in case
Read the rest
two projects do not have strong coupling, separate them in different solutions, and use a local nuget package source to reference. 4. of course, you'll have to roll some custom cmake script for managing nuget packages. I've done some work on this, here: https://github.com/Microsoft/GraphEngine/blob/master/cmake/F... I've been using this approach in a few of projects at work(and also OSS ones). Insofar people are happy with it.
In C#88: The Original C# (2018)
v-yadli·Mar 8, 2018
Interesting question. I think it is critical to point out that, the underlying principles for a graph database is different from RDBMS, because the operators in a graph database may not comply to relational algebra. Consider the following case: Client A issues a query -- starting from a vertex, conduct bounded closure search, giving every visited vertex a mark (coloring, or lexical flag, whatever you would expect from a graph algorithm) Client B issues a query -- clearing any marks applied to a particular vertex, which happens to be one of the visited vertex of Client A's query. Now, race condition aside, let's assume we first process query A then B. Would we allow query B to succeed? It is clearly possible for query B to break the semantic of query A, for example, query A goes through a bridge and then query B cuts the bridge, so the con
Read the rest
nectivity information is lost. Of course we could say that such query A should be a part of a transaction, and isolation can be more strictly enforced -- but again, to what degree? Poor locality will cause the transactions to be interconnected with each other. How does a graph database determine what is the true purpose of the algorithm under each query? What does it guarantee? Many graph databases now claims ACID, but what do they really mean? Is it just a fancy query language over a traditional data model? Say, you could also build graph queries for a SQL database -- what does a graph database provide that such graph-over-SQL cannot? p.s. I work on Microsoft Graph Engine: https://github.com/Microsoft/GraphEngine. We decide to build a modular graph processor rather than calling it a graph database, because we don't really know by default, what kind of semantics does a user want. With GraphEngine, you could plug in linear query languages likq Gremlin or GraphQL, you can also plug in SPARQL, or traditional relational model with strong guarantees, or down to bare-metal key-value store with atomicity and durability only. I do think that a graph data model is very helpful in many scenarios, but I think we really need to advance the research on the semantic of graph management.
In Ask HN: If you've used a graph database, would you use it again?

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.