Hi everyone,
I am currently working on a paper for my university on the topic of "use-cases for graph databases". One of the areas of application I would like to cover is Google Maps. According to many reports, Google uses the A* algorithm, which works with a graph.
So, in preparation for this topic, I have been looking into the technical background of graphs and relational databases and I think I understand the advantages and disadvantages quite well by now.
Now in my paper I want to argue, that for some use-cases it just doesn't make sense to use something else but a graph. But at the moment I somehow can't transfer the theoretical knowledge into practice in such a way that I could write an argument from it.
So my question is: How can I explain why Google uses graph databases for its route calculation?
My idea would be to argue with algorithmic complexity; so basically that the execution time simply becomes too large with an increasing number of nodes (i.e. hops in the case of a route calculation) because there are too many possibilities (Traveling Salesman Problem).
Do you think I'm going in the right direction with this, or would you argue differently? And how would I have to proceed with this argumentation? Is there perhaps a formula for this?
Sorry if I'm being a bit stupid, but I'm still quite new to the topic, so please bear with me.
I would be grateful for any advice. Thanks in advance
