Ok - i sensed it was in relation to the StarGraph conversation but I wasn't
sure if you were going bigger/more general than that - thanks for
clarifying and what you offered that sounds good.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Ted Wilmes wrote:
> In this case, by implementations, I just meant vari
In this case, by implementations, I just meant various permutations of the
serialization format. Harness was probably to grand of a term. I was
thinking a set of benchmarks that could be used to compare different
variations on our internal StarGraph serialization as we try them out,
really just t
Ted, when you say:
"benchmarking harness so that it would be easy to swap various
implementations"
do you mean like gremlin-benchmark would be useful to other graph
providers? like UniPop could run gremlin-benchmark over its implementation
and compare it to Titan?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:23 PM
If folks thought it was a good idea, I'd love to put together a little
benchmarking harness so that it would be easy to swap various
implementations & tweaks in and out to measure how they perform. For
example, benchmarks running against different #'s of vertex properties,
edge counts, # of propert
Hi,
TinkerPop 3.3.0 is not slated for anytime soon, but some buddies are interested
in a making the serialization format of StarGraph more efficient. Given it
would be a major breaking change, we can’t do it till TinkerPop 3.3.0, but we
can talk about it and design it. Here is a ticket to get u
