For graphical databases, models of essential relationships (or their object-oriented cousins, class models) are very good: the coincidence is so good that I think of the graph database as how to implement such a model initially.
All other types of databases (including relational), require the developer to "do extra things" to map the model to the database. For instance. for SQL databases, additional material is relatively small (for example, mapping NN relationships to additional tables, workarounds for inheritance). On the contrary, the additional material for hash tables is quite large (serialization of properties, manual relationship management, etc.).
Of course, different graphical databases also differ in how seamless the connection is. I am participating in a graph database called InfoGrid , where the step from the high-level model to the code is automatic using a code generator.
source share