I used eclipse to generate against svn. Will have to inspect in more detail later...
sent from my htc, forgive typos please ! On Oct 11, 2011 8:08 AM, "Paolo Castagna" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > first of all, thank you for your patch. > I had a quick look, but I did not try to apply it (yet). > > May I ask how you created your patch? > > We added a section on the Getting Involved page on the Jena website: > > "Patches should be attached to issues in Jira (click on > More Actions > Attach Files). To create a patch you can simply > use the command: > > svn diff > JENA-XYZ.patch > > Please, inspect your patch and make sure it includes all (and only) > the relevant changes for a single issue. Don't forget tests! If you > want to test if a patch applies cleanly you can use: > > patch -p0 < JENA-XYZ.patch > > If you use Eclipse: right click on the project name in Package Explorer, > select Team > Create Patch or Team > Apply Patch." > > - > http://jena.staging.apache.org/jena/getting_involved/#submit_your_patches > > > It really helps if a patch contains only the lines you added|removed > and it applies cleanly. It saves a lot of time and speed-up reviewing > it. > > Your patch may be perfectly fine, but I wanted to take the opportunity > to send the message across. > > I am really curious to run a few benchmarks when it's done to compare > MonetDB with a more traditional SQL system. > > By the way, about benchmarks Andy is (secretely) working on this: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/jena/Experimental/JenaPerf/trunk/ > I have not time to try it yet, but it seems very interesting. :-) > > Thank you again for the new interesting feature. > > Paolo > > > nat lu wrote: > > Added, with patch file, at > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-134 > > > > > > I have made no more progress on testing it out other than sdbconfig so > > far, hope too soon. > > > > > > On 09/09/11 16:43, Paolo Castagna wrote: > >> Hi, > >> why don't you open a new JIRA issue (as a New Feature) for this? > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA > >> > >> You can then attach a patch to it. This way others can look at what > >> you have done so far (and maybe help you out). > >> > >> Thanks for your help, > >> Paolo > >> > >> nat lu wrote: > >>> I made a start, and tried to use one of the existing flavours, but > ended > >>> up creating one for MonetDB - combination of derby and DB2. It doesnt > >>> like longs or unbounded varchars. > >>> > >>> So, I got as far as getting SDBConfig to complete, but havent done an > >>> sdbload yet > >>> > >>> > >>> On 09/09/11 10:37, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 04/09/11 13:03, nat lu wrote: > >>>>> I'm going to give it a go sometime soon and report back on my > >>>>> non-scientific findings. Your point about the small number of > >>>>> columns is > >>>>> well made, but the research paper cited earlier also mentions this > and > >>>>> reports that because of column store optimisations even when they > >>>>> vertically partitioned their data rather than using a property-table > >>>>> approach they still saw good improvement. However, again, I'm no > >>>>> column > >>>>> store expert so perhaps I'm missing some point here :-). Anyway, > >>>>> time to > >>>>> "suck it and see@, all in the name of progress of course. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 03/09/11 16:29, David Jordan wrote: > >>>>>> I have not used a column-oriented database, but I am somewhat > >>>>>> familiar > >>>>>> with them. My understanding of them is that the storage is > >>>>>> partitioned > >>>>>> on a column basis, such that there is no physical clustering > together > >>>>>> of all the columns for a given row. An advantage of this would be in > >>>>>> the case where you have tables with many columns, but the particular > >>>>>> application only needs a small subset of columns. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> With the SDB representation of triples (3 columns) and quads (4 > >>>>>> columns), and access typically based on having a specific value for > >>>>>> one or two of the columns, I am not so sure that a column-based > >>>>>> approach would offer any advantage. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But again, I am no expert on these types of databases. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> These discussions about alternative datastore representations > RDF/OWL > >>>>>> data are very useful, to gain better understanding of which data > >>>>>> architectures yield the best implementation approach for > >>>>>> high-performance. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> p.s. I Monet provides support for JDBC, I would not think much > effort > >>>>>> is needed to support in with SDB. > >>>> Shouldn't be too hard :-) SDB targets SQL-92 and there are a few > >>>> extension points to cope with the vagaries of different SQL engines. > >>>> It's one of the reasons there are ~10 small files to write, to capture > >>>> the uniqueness of each SQL syntax. > >>>> > >>>> Andy > > >
