Niclas, do you have the perf tests as part of the repository?
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Michael Hunger <
[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
