The big driver was scale. The materials my folks looked at left them with the impression that Jena+SQL wouldn't handle big data sets with adequate performance, and Mulgara would. Rereading the trail they followed, I'm a bit uncertain about the conclusion. They also got the idea that we could talk to Mulgara via Jena, and the more I read, the more confused I get about _that_.
For this new Fuseki thing, do I talk to it over the Jena API, and if so how? On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 09/12/10 17:24, Benson Margulies wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> We did an evaluation of tuple stores and developed a tentative >> fondness for Mulgara. Due to issues with the baroque way in which it >> is packaged, I'm having doubts. So I thought it was a good time to ask >> you all what you think. The goal here is to store and query a lot of >> tuples organized as a lot of graphs. >> >> --benson > > (Obviously I'm biased :-) > > There is a new Jena-based database/server that is trying to be easier to > use. > > Fuseki > > http://openjena.org/wiki/Fuseki > > > It comes packaged with TDB for the database (SDB is also possible). > > It is SPARQL 1.1 -- query, update and HTTP update. There are some command > line scripts to drive it and some web pages as well. If you are loading a > lot of data (10's millions of quads), it would be better to bulk load TDB > offline. > > It support RDF datasets so it has many-graph support. > > Download the zip file: fuseki-0.1.0-VER.zip > > from > http://openjena.org/repo-dev/org/openjena/fuseki/ > > Do note that its very new and although it reuses a lot of mature code from > Joseki, I can't guarantee it's as stable. > > It would be helpful to know what you liked about Mulgara. Its good to learn > what makes for ease-of-use. > > Andy >
