I was using 2.40 and upgraded to 2.41 too.

On Nov 10, 2016 1:37 AM, "Rob Vesse" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Out of interest did you try upgrading to the latest version as well?
>
>  Rob
>
> On 10/11/2016 01:17, "Jason Koh" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     Thanks Rob.
>
>     The query fix works much faster. It still takes 90 seconds but I think
> it
>     is the query itself requires a large search.
>
>     Thanks again.
>
>
>     With regards,
>     Jason Koh
>     cseweb.ucsd.edu/~jbkoh
>
>     On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Rob Vesse <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>     > Jason
>     >
>     >  Your query as written results in large cross products as far as I
> can see.
>     >
>     >  The middle section of your query which is outside of the unions
> makes no
>     > reference to the previously bound sensor variable so the query is
> forced to
>     > cross product all the sensors with all the rooms.
>     >
>     >  A simple fix may be to move that section of the query to after the
> final
>     > union. A better fix might be to move that portion of the query into
> both
>     > branches of the final union.
>     >
>     >  Please don’t remove prefixes from queries. It prevents people from
> simply
>     > copying and pasting those queries into other tools directly for
> analysis
>     >
>     >  The other thing to consider is the version being used. There are
> some
>     > improvements to property path handling in the just released 3.1.1
> which may
>     > also improve things.
>     >
>     >  Rob
>     >
>     > On 09/11/2016 06:07, "Jason Koh" <[email protected]> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Dear all,
>     >
>     >     I am Jason Koh from Brick community (http://brickschema.org/).
>     >     I try to run a SPARQL query on a graph, and it takes forever on
> Fuseki.
>     >     Environment: Windows 10, i5, 8 GB RAM
>     >     Graph size: 4000 triples
>     >     The query:
>     >     ############ (prefixes are omitted here.)
>     >     SELECT DISTINCT ?sensor ?room
>     >     WHERE {
>     >         { ?sensor rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf*
> brick:Zone_Temperature_Sensor
>     > . }
>     >             UNION
>     >         { ?sensor rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf*
>     >     brick:Discharge_Air_Temperature_Sensor . }
>     >         UNION
>     >         { ?sensor rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf* brick:Occupancy_Sensor .
> }
>     >             UNION
>     >         { ?sensor rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf* brick:CO2_Sensor . }
>     >
>     >         ?vav rdf:type brick:VAV .
>     >         ?zone rdf:type brick:HVAC_Zone .
>     >         ?room rdf:type brick:Room .
>     >
>     >         ?vav bf:feeds+ ?zone .
>     >         ?zone bf:hasPart ?room .
>     >
>     >         {?sensor bf:isPointOf ?vav }
>     >         UNION
>     >         {?sensor bf:isPointOf ?room }
>     >
>     >     }
>     >     #######
>     >
>     >     Background knowledge: I would like to find all the sensors that
> are
>     >     subclass* of the above sensor types in all rooms. A sensor may
> be a
>     > sensor
>     >     of a room or VAV, which is equipment serving a room.
>     >
>     >     Is this a just not reasonable query and should I divide it into
> several
>     >     queries such as one for rooms and one for sensors belonging to
> the
>     > rooms?
>     >
>     >
>     >     Short intro to Brick: It is a building ontology to describe
> resources
>     > in
>     >     buildings comprehensively.
>     >     Github repo with ontology :
>     >     https://github.com/BuildSysUniformMetadata/GroundTruth
>     >     A webpage under construction : http://brickschema.org/
>     >     Paper: https://people.eecs.berkeley.
> edu/~gtfierro/papers/brick.pdf
>     >
>     >     Thank you.
>     >
>     >     With regards,
>     >     Jason Koh
>     >     cseweb.ucsd.edu/~jbkoh
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to