Hello,
Thanks for your answer
> (conditional
> (bgp
> (triple ?loc :locatedInWork ex:Work1)
> (triple ?loc :startVolume ?startvol)
> )
> (bgp (triple ?loc :endVolume ?endvol)))))))
Am I right in understanding that in that case ?loc is bound in the
second part (the part with :endVolume)? If so then the slow
performance must come from somewhere else, I'll investigate further.
I found another way of writing the query which is much more complex
but a little bit more satisfying in the sense that it makes the
binding of ?loc very clear:
?loc :workLocationVolume ?bvol .?loc :locatedInWork ex:Work1 ;
:startVolume ?startvol .
FILTER ((?bvol = ?volnum && NOT EXISTS {?loc :workLocationEndVolume
?evol}) || (?bvol <= ?volnum && EXISTS {?loc :workLocationEndVolume
?evol FILTER (?evol <= ?volnum)}))
In terms of logic is should be equivalent to the previous query,
should there be a performance difference? My experiments show that
this version is quite consistently twice as fast as the OPTIONAL
version.
Best,
--
Elie
