On Friday 23 October 2009 14:36:42 Ben Martin wrote: > 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.
right, but how does a read-only backend help us in Nepomuk? > I can definitely see the attraction to Virtuoso on the desktop / LAN but > for mobile devices V might not be available :| Well, I think that mobile devices in a year or two should not have a problem with 50Mb of ram usage. Cheers, Sebastian _______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
