W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2009

Is there a benchmark of triple-stores with a "bias" to Life Sciences ?

From: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@bbsrc.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:40:41 +0100
Message-Id: <1079BCED-AFF1-412E-AA61-5CAE01C0708D@bbsrc.ac.uk>
To: public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Hi,

In the context of a data-integration project, I'm doing some  
preliminary analysis to see whether it makes sense to use a triple- 
store to setup a backend/repository.
I have some experience with Jena, and In know projects making use of  
Virtuoso or Sesame.
However, I'm not aware of a review/benchmark of these systems, both  
regarding performances and features.
I've seen a few links like:

http://esw.w3.org/topic/LargeTripleStores

or

http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/BerlinSPARQLBenchmark/results/index.html

But I would like to know how these systems scale with large knowledge- 
base (load/query).

I wold also like to get some rough intuition on how much it makes  
sense to store data such as sequences and microarray values in them,  
and how sparql is usable to query based on these values.

Is there anyone that can provide me with some good pointers ?

Or is this some area that you think needs more exploration ?
It seems to me that to the question "why did you use this  
triplestore ?", the usual answer is "I'e tried a few and this worked".

best,
Andrea Splendiani
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 14:55:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:54 GMT