- From: Samuel Rose <samuel.rose@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:55:54 -0400
- To: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@iscb.org>
- Cc: Jerven Bolleman <jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch>, public-lod@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Andrea Splendiani
<andrea.splendiani@iscb.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that some caching with a minimum of query rewriting would get read of 90% of the select{?s ?p ?o} where {?s?p ?o} queries.
>
> From a user perspective, I would rather have a clear result code upfront telling me: your query is to heavy, not enough resources and so on, than partial results + extra codes. I won't do much of partial results anyway... so it's time wasted both sides.
>
> One empiric solution could be to assign a quota per requesting IP (or other form of identification). Then one could restrict the total amount of resource per time-frame, possibly with smart policies. It would also avoid people breaking big queries in many small ones...
>
> But I was wondering: why is resource consumption a problem for sparql endpoint providers, and not for other "providers" on the web ? (say, YouTube, Google, ...).
> Is it the unpredictability of the resources needed ?
>
I've been exploring both 4store clustering
http://4store.org/publications/harris-ssws09.pdf and using concurrent
Erlang (OTP). I've not found much in the Erlang realm (if anyone has
knowledge please let me know). 4store looks promising.
> best,
> Andrea
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 13:56:23 UTC