- From: Andreas Langegger <andreas.langegger@gmx.at>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:22:50 +0200
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Yes, we'd like to be close to evolving standards as well, but it's tough > with a small group of developers, who all work on it when they get the time. Sure, I know... > No, though we can always add anything that has a good use case going for > it. I suppose that the only real difficulty would be in how to handle > non-numeric bindings for the variables the function acts on. Shouldn't > be too hard though. yes, like in SQL sum/avg(string x) is not meaningful, but min or max(string x) means the min/max occurance of x in a group. A SPARQL aggregate query could look like: SELECT ?year AVG(?spots) WHERE { ?s a :SunspotObservation . ?s :spots ?spots . ?s :year ?year . } GROUP BY (?year) . ...remains the question where to put the group by clause and the AVG(). > I'll talk to one of the guys who did the most recent optimization work > about getting some documentation for this... this whould be interesting. In our case, we will have a cost-based model possibly including intra-query parallelism when distributing queries across nodes. This would mean optimization based on reponse time and not resource consumption. > Mulgara currently allows for distributed queries. What I mean by this, > is that it lets you select from graphs on more than one server. You can > specify that each pattern get matched against graphs that you specify > (on whichever server), or you can specify an expression of > unions/intersections of graphs on different servers which the entire > WHERE clause will be matched against. This isn't optimized for network > traffic, but I'm expecting that my company will let me implement that on > work time later this year. interesting, although doing this a second time [2] may really be frustrating (you've got my compassion ;-) Do I have to setup Mulgara on each node or is it working like with SPARQL-protcol enabled-endpoints? What I really miss and what may really degrade the SPARQL protocol [1] is some kind of cursors. regards, Andy [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/ [2] http://gearon.blogspot.com/ - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dipl.-Ing.(FH) Andreas Langegger Institute for Applied Knowledge Processing Johannes Kepler University Linz A-4040 Linz, Altenberger Straße 69 > http://www.faw.at > http://www.langegger.at -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGMgc6Kk9SuaNc5+IRAiipAJkBF/lpFzdSSz3xRwUCfCzyCA+lcQCeOACW qGaJEnHMCibm2zUjLCcWajI= =TwvT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 14:24:41 UTC