Re: triple (quad) storage sizing

On May 10, 2011, at 2:26 PM, William Waites wrote:

> So if I understand correctly, this example means, best case where a
> subject only occurs in exactly one graph, that we get basically the
> same properties as a triplestore, so a savings of 25%. There are
> probably diminishing returns when one tries to do that with, e.g.
> (s,p) and (o) unless many repeating predicates on the same subject are
> very common (e.g. not the case with most real datasets).

This will also apply to other index orderings, not just (g,s,p,o). For example, a (p,o,g,s) index can share common (p,o) pairs and store lists of (g,s).


Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 19:30:57 UTC