Hey Niclas, when looking at your post, I wondered how you do your cypher
query and thought you could easily speed up performance by a factor of 100
or 1000
look at these nodes -> if you added the "kind" as a label to each node,
like :Uri, :Literal, :BNode and then created an index on :Label(value) for
each of those.
You could even leave off the "kind" properties then.
Alternatively for a quick win you can add a "generic" label, like ":Node"
and create an index on :Node(value)
Then (depending on the way you resolve things in your sparql impl, you
should be able to speed it up massively, by using the label + value to find
things (either via cypher or embedded api (graphdb.findByLabelAndProperty()
Michael
(a {kind: "uri", value: "http://example.com"; })
A literal node:
(a {kind: "literal", value: "Text", type: "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
"})
A blank node:
(a {kind: "bnode" value: "genid--b1234"})
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Andrii Stesin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Bo,
>
> yes it definitely has something in common. Would you please mind pointing
> me to some explanations, why reification is considered so harmful?
>
> I see some interesting points there, namely
>
> The subject of a reification
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-mt-20140225/#dfn-reification> is
>> intended to refer to a concrete realization of an RDF triple, such as a
>> document in a surface syntax, rather than a triple considered as an
>> abstract object. This *supports use cases where properties such as dates
>> of composition or provenance information are applied to the reified triple*,
>> which are meaningful *only when thought of as referring to a particular
>> instance* or token of a triple.
>
>
> it seems worth the attention at the very least. And also
>
> Since the relation between triples and reification
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-mt-20140225/#dfn-reification>s of
>> triples in any RDF graph or graphs need not be one-to-one, asserting a
>> property about some entity described by a reification
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-mt-20140225/#dfn-reification> need
>> not entail that the same property holds of another such entity, even if it
>> has the same components.
>
>
> This seems interesting to me. Also I like dictionary approach like in RDF
> HDT format <http://www.rdfhdt.org/technical-specification/#triples>. What
> do you think about this combination as a basic data model?
>
> WBR,
> Andrii
>
> On Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:12:16 AM UTC+2, Bo Ferri wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrii,
>> well, this looks like a re-incarnation of RDF reification [1], which is
>> the worst modelling option for subject-predicate-object statements in my
>> mind ;)
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Neo4j" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Neo4j" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
