On 5 Oct 2009, at 19:15, Richard Newman wrote:
My personal opinion: the BSBM serves a limited purpose for people
evaluating triple stores, but strikes me as very SQL-ey in style:
the
data are the opposite of sparse, and it's not a network. Relational
databases are a much, much better fit for this problem, and thus
it's
not very interesting. It's a little benchmarking how well an Excel
spreadsheet can do pixel animation: sure, you can do it, but there
are
other tools which are both mature and more suitable, so why bother?
Wasn't the original point of BSBM to compare RDF stores with RDF-to-
RDB and native SQL for a common application? If so, the fact the
RDF forms match SQL-style is necessary.
That might be the case, but the simple fact that it exists means
that people use it as a broad benchmark for query performance. Even
triple store implementations that don't do RDB mapping are expected
to compete. It's certainly not phrased as "ignore this benchmark
unless X, Y, Z".
Even so, it's benchmarking something that's (broadly speaking) only
interesting to implementors of such triple stores. Users don't (or
shouldn't) care how well their graph store can emulate a traditional
SQL DB.
Yes, I agree, it's not really a criticism of BSBM, it's more that
there's no really appropriate benchmark for RDF yet.
We have some internal stuff that we use, but I wouldn't really call it
"representative", it's just some real-world data and queries, but RDF
can have os much variety it's hard.
- Steve
