On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 13:22 +0200, Sebastian Trüg wrote: > On Thursday 22 October 2009 12:43:55 Ben Martin wrote: > > Hi, > > As I'm tinkering with a new backend design for soprano I'm wondering > > what folks use to benchmark nepomuk for KDE4 usage? > > > > Do folks just use the generic RDF benchmarking: > > http://esw.w3.org/topic/RdfStoreBenchmarking > > when comparing sesame2 to virtuoso backend for example? > > > > folks, in this case me, don't do much benchmarking at all. So far there was > no > real need for it since there has never been any choice: in the beginning we > only had redland. You know that it is slow by using it for a few days. No > need > for a benchmark. Then we had sesame2 which is deprecated by Virtuoso simply > because the latter has so many advantages. Performance is not even in the top > 5. ;)
The two main areas that I'm targeting with my memory mapped soprano backend are as a quick, read only, in process cache for desktop and for embedded or pseudo embedded targets like the maemo. I can definitely see the attraction to Virtuoso on the desktop / LAN but for mobile devices V might not be available :|
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
