Vector database vs graph database

Concepts · 6 min read

Vector databases and graph databases keep getting compared because AI applications need both kinds of question answered: "what's similar to this?" and "what's connected to this?" They are different tools with different data models, and treating one as a substitute for the other is how retrieval quality quietly goes wrong.

Two retrieval models

A vector database stores embeddings — points in a high-dimensional space — and answers nearest-neighbour queries: given this vector, what's close? Closeness approximates semantic similarity, which makes it the right index for unstructured text, images and audio.

A graph database stores entities and typed relationships and answers traversal queries: from this node, what's connected, through what, how far? The relationships are explicit data, so the answers are exact, repeatable and explainable rather than ranked by similarity.

What a vector database is good at

Semantic recall at scale. "Find passages about deployment rollbacks" works even when no document contains those words, because similarity lives in meaning-space. Fuzzy matching, cross-lingual recall, deduplication, clustering — anywhere "reads like" is the right relation, vectors are the right index, and none of that is what a graph does.

What a graph database is good at

Structural recall. "Which services depend on the one that failed, and who owns them" has an exact answer that similarity can't compute — it requires following DEPENDS_ON and OWNS edges hop by hop. Multi-hop questions, variable-depth reachability, provenance chains, supersedence: these are traversals, deterministic and citable. The same query returns the same path, and the path is the explanation.

For AI applications: complementary, not competing

The retrieval stack that holds up in production uses each for its half. Vectors find entry points: embed the question, pull the semantically-relevant entities or passages. The graph expands and explains: from those entry points, traverse to the facts, dependencies and sources that similarity can't see. An agent's memory follows the same split — similarity for "have I seen something like this," traversal for "what do I actually know about it."

Choosing, and combining, honestly

If your corpus is unstructured text and your questions are topical, start with a vector database alone — it may be all you need. If your questions span relationships — dependencies, ownership, identity, agent memory — you need a graph. If both, integrate them: the id of a vector hit becomes the entry node of a traversal.

CognoDB is deliberately the graph half. It ships Cypher traversals over Bolt, full-text BM25 keyword search, and an MCP server for agents — and no vector index. Pair it with the vector store you already run; the two compose over a shared entity id.

At a glance

Vector database vs graph database

Vector databaseGraph database
StoresEmbeddings (points in space)Entities & typed relationships
Core queryNearest neighboursTraversal from a node
AnswersRanked, approximateExact, deterministic
Multi-hop questionsNot expressibleNative
ExplainabilitySimilarity scoreThe path is the explanation
Best forSemantic search over unstructured dataStructure, dependencies, provenance, memory
In an AI stackFinds entry pointsExpands and explains them

Questions

Common questions.

Do I need a vector database or a graph database for AI?

It depends on the questions. Topical recall over unstructured text: vector. Relationship questions — dependencies, identity, agent memory, provenance: graph. Production retrieval stacks commonly run both, using vector hits as entry points for graph traversals.

Can a graph database replace my vector database?

No, and CognoDB won't pretend to. Similarity search needs a vector index, which CognoDB doesn't ship. It ships the graph half — Cypher traversals, BM25 full-text search and MCP — and pairs with whatever vector store you already use.

Can a vector database do multi-hop questions?

Not really. Chunks retrieved by similarity are independent of each other; nothing connects them. A question like "what's two dependencies upstream of X" requires explicit relationships to follow, which is precisely what a graph stores.

How do the two work together in practice?

Give entities a shared id in both systems. Embed and search to find relevant entities (breadth), then traverse the graph from those ids to collect facts, sources and dependencies (depth). The combined context block is compact, current and citable.

Start now

~98.7%

token efficiency at 2,000 entities (see the footnotes above)

Try the ideas on a real graph.

A free instance takes about a minute and no card. Every Cypher snippet on this page runs against it unchanged.

First-graph path

Live
  1. Create a free instance

    No card. Ready in about a minute.

  2. Connect your driver

    bolt+s:// URI into the driver you already use.

  3. Write two MERGEs

    That's the entire shape of agent memory.

  4. Point an agent at it

    One MCP config block. No integration code.