MetaGraphs.jl vs MetaGraphsNext.jl performance benchmark

[mroavi]

A performance benchmark comparison between MetaGraphs.jl and MetaGraphsNext.jl would be very valuable. It would basically justify the existence of this package (and a potential replacement for MetaGraphs.jl). The question it would answer would be: how much performance improvement can we achieve by implementing a type-stable version of MetaGraphs.jl? The answer would help a lot of people answering another question: Is the performance improvement worth migrating? I think the answer is yes.

[bramtayl]

This would be great!

[hdavid16]

What is the roadmap for graphs with metadata in Julia? I'm happy to contribute in this and have been using MetaGraphs.jl a lot. I haven't used MetaGraphsNext.jl but I like the interface after glancing at it. Is MetaGraphsNext.jl just experimental?

[mroavi]

Take a look at this issue: JuliaGraphs/Graphs.jl#35
I believe that there is consent with regards to the fact that MetaGraphs.jl can be improved.
This package and MetaDataGraphs.jl are efforts to do so.
It would be nice if we could unite our efforts to work together toward a common objective: a better MetaGraphs.jl.

[bramtayl]

That sounds good! This package started out as a PR against MetaGraphs, but after the changes became too breaking, the previous MetaGraphs maintainer suggested splitting off into a new package.

[gdalle]

Hey @mroavi, do you have any suggestion of benchmarking task we could use? I was thinking shortest paths with edge weights and maybe vertex attributes telling us whether we can use a given vertex or not