- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:27:07 +0000
- To: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bob DuCharme <bob@snee.com>, public-sparql-dev@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 21:27:39 UTC
But run to another implementation first ;) On 20 Dec 2012, at 21:17, Chime Ogbuji wrote: > If the implementation evaluates the patterns in the order you provide (rather than determine an optimal evaluation strategy independent of the structure of the given query), I think it does make sense. > > -- > Chime Ogbuji > Sent with Sparrow > > On Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Bob DuCharme wrote: > >> Since OPTIONAL clauses have no chance of reducing the search space for >> their containing graph pattern, does it make sense as a general rule of >> thumb to put them after all the ones that do, i.e. after the >> non-OPTIONAL triple patterns? >> >> thanks, >> >> Bob >
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 21:27:39 UTC