Hello,

It seems that differently ordered SPARQL queries is producing different
results and I need some clarification on why this may be happening. I have a
function that does a full text search (modelled exactly in the ARQ lucene
one except it uses Postgresql). For the purposes of this test I have mocked
the actual search out and am simply counting how many times the function is
executed.

In the first case I get an expected 2 calls to the function implementation
but in the second case I only get one and I was hoping someone could tell me
why (as this eventually will produce different results in an unmocked
situation). One thing to highlight is that the query does a search for
containers that may contain this string as well hence the additional query
elements. Not sure if I am not doing this container match correctly.

Case 1:

PREFIX ns0: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>
PREFIX mb: <java:org.onionsoft.mediabag.jena.search.>
select ?res
 where
{
(?res ?12c9a9gnhunaw) mb:tsMatch ("me" ns0:creator) .

(?mi8huiqakycf ?1r4ut37ypo3yv)  mb:tsMatch ("titre"@fr) .  <--------
Container Match
?res ?1u4ua9v2zsqkt ?mi8huiqakycf .  <---------- Container Match
(?res ?1r4ut37ypo3yv) mb:tsMatch ("titre"@fr) .

}

BGP:

(sequence
  (propfunc <java:org.onionsoft.mediabag.jena.search.tsMatch>
    (?mi8huiqakycf ?1r4ut37ypo3yv) ("titre"@fr)
    (propfunc <java:org.onionsoft.mediabag.jena.search.tsMatch>
      (?res ?12c9a9gnhunaw) ("me" <http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator>)
      (table unit)))
  (bgp (triple ?res ?1u4ua9v2zsqkt ?mi8huiqakycf)))


Case 2:

PREFIX ns0: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>
PREFIX mb: <java:org.onionsoft.mediabag.jena.search.>
select ?res
 where
{
(?remo9exejffl ?mpn8d16zc5oh)  mb:tsMatch ("titre"@fr) .
?res ?m3j8y01zhi1f ?remo9exejffl .
(?res ?mpn8d16zc5oh) mb:tsMatch ("titre"@fr) .

(?res ?uoonek144gni) mb:tsMatch ("me" ns0:creator) .

}

BGP:

(sequence
  (propfunc <java:org.onionsoft.mediabag.jena.search.tsMatch>
    (?remo9exejffl ?mpn8d16zc5oh) ("titre"@fr)
    (table unit))
  (bgp (triple ?res ?m3j8y01zhi1f ?remo9exejffl)))


Thanks

Sumit

Reply via email to