My first guess would be no, it wouldn't hurt performance. Although I have limited experience on Fuseki (just using it as a second test endpoint to verify SPARQL compatibility), I am using a similar approach on a different RDF store (currently at about 650,000 graphs on one deployment) I would imagine that Graphs are indexed the same as S, P, or O on Fuseki.
One of my main problems with this approach has also been the lack of UI support for administration of large number of graphs as you pointed out. This is something not specific to Fuseki, apparently there isn't enough demand for this use case. On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Conal Tuohy <[email protected]> wrote: > I am working with Fuseki 2 using the SPARQL Named Graph protocol, and I > wondered if there are practical limits on the number of named graphs in the > graph store? > > I know that many people use Jena only with a very small number of distinct > graphs, and I noticed that Fuseki's own user interface really only works > well when the number of named graphs is small (less than a thousand). That > is not a big problem in itself, since I don't need to use that UI, but I'm > more concerned about performance or other limitations when the number of > graphs is much higher; on the order of a million graphs, or a few million. > > Can anyone reassure me? Has anyone had problems with large number of named > graphs, and if so, were you able to fix them? > > Thanks! > > Conal > > -- > Conal Tuohy > http://conaltuohy.com/ > @conal_tuohy > +61-466-324297 >
