- From: Aidan Hogan <aidan.hogan@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:27:53 +0100
- To: Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>
- CC: public-lod@w3.org
Hi Jerven, On 16/04/2013 20:51, Jerven Bolleman wrote: > Hi Aidan, > > I think that you are jumping to conclusions. While a RDF store that can hold any RDF data will answer queries > in P-Space, however that is an extremely generic solution. There is no need that a fully SPARQL1.1 query compliant engine needs to hold > true to this [1]. > <snip> Absolutely. Very rarely will SPARQL run into "P-Space cases". And yes, we can define subsets of SPARQL that scale and cases where SPARQL cannot perform joins and so forth, but then, very simply, it's not SPARQL. It is something else. It is a subset of SPARQL. In summary: * "SPARQL scales in some cases" = vague, but okay * "SPARQL scales" = not okay > The credo that SPARQL does not scale in comparison to restpark does not hold true because restpark cannot answer queries that SPARQL endpoints could. But this is *precisely* the reason why it does hold true! :) SPARQL does not scale in comparison to Restpark because (and only because) SPARQL is a complex language and Restpark is a simple language. > Not competing in most of the performance race is not the same as winning the race ;) Who said anything about a race. :) Cheers, Aidan
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 20:28:22 UTC