But run to another implementation first ;) On 20 Dec 2012, at 21:17, Chime Ogbuji wrote:
> If the implementation evaluates the patterns in the order you provide (rather > than determine an optimal evaluation strategy independent of the structure of > the given query), I think it does make sense. > > -- > Chime Ogbuji > Sent with Sparrow > > On Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Bob DuCharme wrote: > >> Since OPTIONAL clauses have no chance of reducing the search space for >> their containing graph pattern, does it make sense as a general rule of >> thumb to put them after all the ones that do, i.e. after the >> non-OPTIONAL triple patterns? >> >> thanks, >> >> Bob >
