Sheet 1 (Raw-Data): The raw data of the study is provided, presenting the tagging results for the used measures described in the paper. For each subject, it includes multiple columns: A. a sequential student ID B an ID that defines a random group label and the notation C. the used notation: user Story or use Cases D. the case they were assigned to: IFA, Sim, or Hos E. the subject's exam grade (total points out of 100). Empty cells mean that the subject did not take the first exam F. a categorical representation of the grade L/M/H, where H is greater or equal to 80, M is between 65 included and 80 excluded, L otherwise G. the total number of classes in the student's conceptual model H. the total number of relationships in the student's conceptual model I. the total number of classes in the expert's conceptual model J. the total number of relationships in the expert's conceptual model K-O. the total number of encountered situations of alignment, wrong representation, system-oriented, omitted, missing (see tagging scheme below) P. the researchers' judgement on how well the derivation process explanation was explained by the student: well explained (a systematic mapping that can be easily reproduced), partially explained (vague indication of the mapping ), or not present.

Tagging scheme:
Aligned (AL) - A concept is represented as a class in both models, either

with the same name or using synonyms or clearly linkable names; Wrongly represented (WR) - A class in the domain expert model is incorrectly represented in the student model, either (i) via an attribute, method, or relationship rather than class, or (ii) using a generic term (e.g., user'' instead ofurban planner''); System-oriented (SO) - A class in CM-Stud that denotes a technical implementation aspect, e.g., access control. Classes that represent legacy system or the system under design (portal, simulator) are legitimate; Omitted (OM) - A class in CM-Expert that does not appear in any way in CM-Stud; Missing (MI) - A class in CM-Stud that does not appear in any way in CM-Expert.

All the calculations and information provided in the following sheets

originate from that raw data.

Sheet 2 (Descriptive-Stats): Shows a summary of statistics from the data collection,

including the number of subjects per case, per notation, per process derivation rigor category, and per exam grade category.

Sheet 3 (Size-Ratio):

The number of classes within the student model divided by the number of classes within the expert model is calculated (describing the size ratio). We provide box plots to allow a visual comparison of the shape of the distribution, its central value, and its variability for each group (by case, notation, process, and exam grade) . The primary focus in this study is on the number of classes. However, we also provided the size ratio for the number of relationships between student and expert model.

Sheet 4 (Overall):

Provides an overview of all subjects regarding the encountered situations, completeness, and correctness, respectively. Correctness is defined as the ratio of classes in a student model that is fully aligned with the classes in the corresponding expert model. It is calculated by dividing the number of aligned concepts (AL) by the sum of the number of aligned concepts (AL), omitted concepts (OM), system-oriented concepts (SO), and wrong representations (WR). Completeness on the other hand, is defined as the ratio of classes in a student model that are correctly or incorrectly represented over the number of classes in the expert model. Completeness is calculated by dividing the sum of aligned concepts (AL) and wrong representations (WR) by the sum of the number of aligned concepts (AL), wrong representations (WR) and omitted concepts (OM). The overview is complemented with general diverging stacked bar charts that illustrate correctness and completeness.

For sheet 4 as well as for the following four sheets, diverging stacked bar

charts are provided to visualize the effect of each of the independent and mediated variables. The charts are based on the relative numbers of encountered situations for each student. In addition, a "Buffer" is calculated witch solely serves the purpose of constructing the diverging stacked bar charts in Excel. Finally, at the bottom of each sheet, the significance (T-test) and effect size (Hedges' g) for both completeness and correctness are provided. Hedges' g was calculated with an online tool: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html. The independent and moderating variables can be found as follows:

Sheet 5 (By-Notation):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by notation - UC, US.

Sheet 6 (By-Case):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by case - SIM, HOS, IFA.

Sheet 7 (By-Process):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by how well the derivation process is explained - well explained, partially explained, not present.

Sheet 8 (By-Grade):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by the exam grades, converted to categorical values High, Low , and Medium.

This resource, a MS Excel refresher, extends the level for this Data Nugget. Students are given an Excel workbook with the data and asked to graph and calculate diversity using Excel functions (rather than drawing graphs by hand as in the original data nugget). The data set used is the same. I use this activity in an upper division Environmental Science course for majors that focuses on Restoration Ecology. The simplicity of the data set and the comparisons of reptile diversity among urban, non-urban and urban rehabilitated lend for a great example for doing calculations in spreadsheets.

Numerical data (Excel spreadsheet) that underly the graphs in Figs 2G, 2H, 4E, 5E, 6I, 6J, 7C,

Snapshot img

Graph Database Market Size 2025-2029

The graph database market size is valued to increase by USD 11.24 billion, at a CAGR of 29% from 2024 to 2029. Open knowledge network gaining popularity will drive the graph database market.

Market Insights

North America dominated the market and accounted for a 46% growth during the 2025-2029.
By End-user - Large enterprises segment was valued at USD 1.51 billion in 2023
By Type - RDF segment accounted for the largest market revenue share in 2023

Market Size & Forecast

Market Opportunities: USD 670.01 million 
Market Future Opportunities 2024: USD 11235.10 million
CAGR from 2024 to 2029 : 29%

Market Summary

The market is experiencing significant growth due to the increasing demand for low-latency query capabilities and the ability to handle complex, interconnected data. Graph databases are deployed in both on-premises data centers and cloud regions, providing flexibility for businesses with varying IT infrastructures. One real-world business scenario where graph databases excel is in supply chain optimization. In this context, graph databases can help identify the shortest path between suppliers and consumers, taking into account various factors such as inventory levels, transportation routes, and demand patterns. This can lead to increased operational efficiency and reduced costs.
However, the market faces challenges such as the lack of standardization and programming flexibility. Graph databases, while powerful, require specialized skills to implement and manage effectively. Additionally, the market is still evolving, with new players and technologies emerging regularly. Despite these challenges, the potential benefits of graph databases make them an attractive option for businesses seeking to gain a competitive edge through improved data management and analysis.

What will be the size of the Graph Database Market during the forecast period?

Get Key Insights on Market Forecast (PDF) Request Free Sample

The market is an evolving landscape, with businesses increasingly recognizing the value of graph technology for managing complex and interconnected data. According to recent research, the adoption of graph databases is projected to grow by over 20% annually, surpassing traditional relational databases in certain use cases. This trend is particularly significant for industries requiring advanced data analysis, such as finance, healthcare, and telecommunications. Compliance is a key decision area where graph databases offer a competitive edge. By modeling data as nodes and relationships, organizations can easily trace and analyze interconnected data, ensuring regulatory requirements are met. Moreover, graph databases enable real-time insights, which is crucial for budgeting and product strategy in today's fast-paced business environment.
Graph databases also provide superior performance compared to traditional databases, especially in handling complex queries involving relationships and connections. This translates to significant time and cost savings, making it an attractive option for businesses seeking to optimize their data management infrastructure. In conclusion, the market is experiencing robust growth, driven by its ability to handle complex data relationships and offer real-time insights. This trend is particularly relevant for industries dealing with regulatory compliance and seeking to optimize their data management infrastructure.

Unpacking the Graph Database Market Landscape

In today's data-driven business landscape, the adoption of graph databases has surged due to their unique capabilities in handling complex network data modeling. Compared to traditional relational databases, graph databases offer a significant improvement in query performance for intricate relationship queries, with some reports suggesting up to a 500% increase in query response time. Furthermore, graph databases enable efficient data lineage tracking, ensuring regulatory compliance and enhancing data version control. Graph databases, such as property graph models and RDF databases, facilitate node relationship management and real-time graph processing, making them indispensable for industries like finance, healthcare, and social media. With the rise of distributed and knowledge graph databases, organizations can achieve scalability and performance improvements, handling massive datasets with ease. Security, indexing, and deployment are essential aspects of graph databases, ensuring data integrity and availability. Query performance tuning and graph analytics libraries further enhance the value of graph databases in data integration and business intelligence applications. Ultimately, graph databases offer a powerful alternative to NoSQL databases, providing a more flexible and efficient approach to managing complex data relationships.

Key Market Drivers Fueling Growth

The growing popularity o

The excel document contains the specific numbers and results in the comparison graph with specific attributes such as hardware overhead, test time, and peak current consumption. Every sheet shows the detailed comparison results of the hardware overhead, test time, and peak current consumption as functions of TSV numbers (0 to 1000), respectively. (XLSX)

Purpose – The conversion between calibrated airspeed (CAS) and equivalent airspeed (EAS) is relatively cumbersome, because it involves the calculation of incompressible flow, for which the equations are quite long. If calculations on the computer are required, conversions with equations are necessary. In contrast, this project calculates a CAS to EAS Compressibility Correction Chart, which allows to convert CAS to EAS very quickly by reading the correction from a graph. --- Methodology – In Excel, compressibility correction is achieved through flight mechanics formulas. The correction is calculated with two distinct functions, one based on Mach Number and the other on pressure altitude. These functions are graphed individually and then integrated to produce the Compressibility Correction Chart. --- Findings – The Compressibility Correction Chart was successfully recreated as a 2-D graph. Upon comparison with other correction charts, the EAS-CAS-results demonstrate a mere 0% deviation, proving the accuracy of the findings and validating their near-perfect alignment. --- Research Limitations – Due to a limitation in Excel, which allows for 255 series for plotting, the range of input parameters had to be adjusted accordingly. The iterations of altitude span 1000 ft intervals, while those for Mach Number span 0.05 intervals. --- Practical Implications – Pilots can easily use the Compressibility Correction Chart for quick and highly accurate calculations when needed. --- Originality – CAS-EAS Compressibility Correction Charts are available in other sources. This paper represents a recreation of the 2-D Correction Chart by the combination of plots: one as function of Mach Number and the other of pressure altitude, using the Excel Software.