Ok, next question; what your workload like? Lots of reads, lots of updates, what kind of mix? Is there high concurrency and if so, if what character?
Adam On Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 7:06 PM Matthew Holt <matt...@mpholt.com> wrote: > Hi, > Thanks for your e-mail. We're using a jena-core directly. > > We haven't implemented or used Fuseki though.... > > Thank you, > Matt > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:39 PM, ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > How is TDB being deployed here? Are you using Fuseki or connecting more > > directly? > > > > ajs6f > > > > > On Jul 30, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Matthew Holt <matt...@mpholt.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > We have a mature product that began using Jena TDB in 2008 when our > > product > > > was created. It uses it as the intermediary layer, and at a > lower-level, > > > all data is persisted to a relational database as well. > > > > > > As the scale of data used by our application has grown, TDB has > > > increasingly served as the largest bottleneck currently. Long-running > > > queries consistently hang the server, lock contention, and customers > > often > > > have to rebuild the indices. This normally starts happening more with > > > indices of 70gb/170 million triples. Additionally, customers have to > have > > > large amounts of RAM, even with Mapped IO enabled. > > > > > > I don't doubt some of this is due to the way data has been stored in > the > > > database, etc. I'm relatively new to the product. Colleagues with more > > > experience have said TDB is ultimately not a good use case for our > > product, > > > and the best way is to migrate to a relational database and use that > > > instead. > > > > > > As this is an extremely large effort, I did notice that we're using TDB > > > 2.7.1. I know this is a wide-open question, but would you expect > > > significant performance/etc improvement by migrating to either TDB 3.8 > or > > > TDB2? > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Matt > > > > >
