- From: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
- Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 02:30:27 +0200 (EET)
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- cc: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Semantic Web List <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 2011-11-12, David Booth wrote: > Indeed, you may have a performance challenges no matter what > convention you use. No, you don't. In any convention. That's the original point of the relational model: the language you use to express your query is terse and expressive, then your friendly database sysstem (originally purely on the server side, but why not on the client side as well?) optimizes all of your idiocy away and produces consistently high-performing query results. Time and again. That ideal survives right onto SPARQL, you know. It's only that neither the implementers of relational databases, nor those of triple stores, really took the logical-physical distinction into heart. If you want, I could easily permute a common relational database into a physical form which ought to be doable automatically, yet which isn't being done by any of the three main commercial databases as of now. -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Received on Saturday, 26 November 2011 00:31:01 UTC