On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Tamas Nepusz
<address@hidden> wrote:
>From what I've been told, UbiGraph can't scale... I think I remember someone stating that 3000 nodes was a high end.
- Python's XMLRPC module is not really efficient when it comes to making many XMLRPC calls in a single run. It really takes a lot of time (the author states that he was able to reach 457 API calls per second, which is about the same what I experienced. An API call is required to add a vertex or an edge, so you can calculate how much would it take to show a graph with m nodes and n edges).
- There is a way to link directly with the Ubigraph server, bypassing the XMLRPC layer (which takes a lot of time I guess due to XML parsing), but that's not possible with Ubigraph's free version - although it would be able to handle 740000 API calls per second.
So yes, I think I can confirm that Ubigraph does not scale up to the size of your graph, and it's better to implement your own visualiser.
I also did some experiments with DrL and LGL when I needed a layout for a large graph with ~60K vertices, and I got much better results with DrL (maybe my graph was too dense for LGL). Nevertheless, DrL is still not a realtime layout, so you can only make use of it if your graph is static and you can generate the layout in advance. I think it took about ten minutes to complete on that graph.
@Chris:
Yes, an igraph-Ubigraph bridge would be nice! I think the NetworkX guys have already done something similar, so maybe check that out to see how it scales up to larger graphs.
--
T.