- From: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 22:28:24 +0100
- To: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
On 5 Oct 2009, at 19:15, Richard Newman wrote: >>> My personal opinion: the BSBM serves a limited purpose for people >>> evaluating triple stores, but strikes me as very SQL-ey in style: >>> the >>> data are the opposite of sparse, and it's not a network. Relational >>> databases are a much, much better fit for this problem, and thus >>> it's >>> not very interesting. It's a little benchmarking how well an Excel >>> spreadsheet can do pixel animation: sure, you can do it, but there >>> are >>> other tools which are both mature and more suitable, so why bother? >> >> Wasn't the original point of BSBM to compare RDF stores with RDF-to- >> RDB and native SQL for a common application? If so, the fact the >> RDF forms match SQL-style is necessary. > > That might be the case, but the simple fact that it exists means > that people use it as a broad benchmark for query performance. Even > triple store implementations that don't do RDB mapping are expected > to compete. It's certainly not phrased as "ignore this benchmark > unless X, Y, Z". > > Even so, it's benchmarking something that's (broadly speaking) only > interesting to implementors of such triple stores. Users don't (or > shouldn't) care how well their graph store can emulate a traditional > SQL DB. Yes, I agree, it's not really a criticism of BSBM, it's more that there's no really appropriate benchmark for RDF yet. We have some internal stuff that we use, but I wouldn't really call it "representative", it's just some real-world data and queries, but RDF can have os much variety it's hard. - Steve
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 21:29:06 UTC