- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:07:58 +0100
- To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Apologies for messing up threading, this mail didn't get through to me for some reason, I found it in the archives by chance. > > Garlik is pleased to announce the release of 4store version 1.0.0. > > > > For more information see http://4store.org/ > > Congratulations! It looks like a really nice bit of work. > > I haven't really followed the state of the art in quad-store > benchmarking. The ESW page isn't totally stale, but it's not that > fresh > either [1]. Do you have any figures that are worth sharing? > > I'm particularly interested in small & fast queries, for little web > apps. My intuition is that something based on SQLite would be faster > for the small stuff, since there's no need for IPC. But, of course, > intuition on such things isn't good for much more than coming up with > good questions to ask. Our experience is that this approach of running SPARQL queries over HTTP is easily fast enough to support that kind of query. For example the page at http://foaf.qdos.com/find/?q=timbl%40w3.org is built entirely from SPARQL queries over a FOAF KB (without something like 10M FOAF files in it), and requires several dozen SPARQL queries*, some of which are very complicated, but it generates the HTML in about .4 of a second. I'd be happy to share the exact queries that are run in the creation of this page offlist, but they're pretty bulky. They have to do the IFP joining up for all the foaf:knows people, so you can imagine that there's quite a few, and they're extremely complex. 3rd parties are currently working on benchmarks of 4store, we have internal benchmarks, but those wouldn't really be meaningful to anyone else at the moment, though we might consider publishing them at some point in the future - they cover ground that's not really captured by existing benchmarks. Anecdotally I would say that the query performance is at on-par with other stores, and import performance is somewhat higher, but I'm not up to speed with current developments. Per-query, and per-data performance in RDF stores seems to vary substantially in SPARQL systems. We look forward to seeing some public benchmark results. * There would be fewer queries, but it's built on SPARQL 1.0, which has no aggregates. - Steve > [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/RdfStoreBenchmarking -- Steve Harris Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 11:08:34 UTC