I prefer also option C Cheers Tsuy
On Oct 26, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > same here; I'd go with C option :) > Tommaso > > 2011/10/26 Daniel Spicar <dspi...@apache.org> > >> the JIRA issue can be found here: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLEREZZA-643 >> >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Spicar <dspi...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Rupert provided a patch to improve serialization performance (thanks for >>> the effort!). I reviewed his Patch and have written my comments on the >> JIRA >>> page. But I think we need to discuss the issues I raise there. In >> summary: >>> >>> - neither the patch nor the current implementations work reliably with >> very >>> large graphs (larger than memeory) >>> - the patch is significantly faster than the current implementation >>> - the current implementation is easier to quick-fix for very large graphs >>> (but also very slow) >>> >>> There is a sketch of a better solution that should allow us to be faster >>> and not limited by memory size. It is based on sorted iterators. However >>> these iterators need to be supplied by the underlying TripleCollections >> and >>> that will require more changes to the core of Clerezza. >>> >>> Because both, the current implementation and the patch doe not really >> work >>> on "big" TripleCollection (when big means really really big) the question >> we >>> should discuss its: >>> a) keep everything as it is and solve the problem properly (possibly as >>> described in the issue) >>> b) quick fix the current implementation (slow performance) + schedule a >>> proper solution >>> c) apply the patch (fast but graphs limited to available memory size) + >>> schedule a proper solution >>> >>> My favorite is c. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >> --trialox ag------------------------------------- tsuyoshi ito hardturmstrasse 101 8005 zuerich
