nice, so basically for a read only instance tdbloader2 is the way to go in terms of disk space. Is there a trade off for the full packed B+Trees in terms of performance?
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:52 PM Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 14/06/2019 18:13, Marco Neumann wrote: > > I am collecting jena loader benchmarks. if you have results please post > > them directly. > > > > http://www.lotico.com/index.php/JENA_Loader_Benchmarks > > > > On a linux machine I am using "time" to collect data. > > > > Is there a flag on tdb2.tdbloader to report time and triples per second? > > It does (if time >1 second) > > ... > INFO Time = 11.755 seconds : Triples = 1,000,312 : Rate = 85,097 /s > > what do you see? > > > > > I have noticed that storage space use for tdbloader2 is significantly > > smaller on disk compared to tdbloader and tdb2.tdbloader. Is there a > > straight forward explanation here? > > tdbloader2 create full packed B+Trees. > > However, as updates happen, these will grow to more like the other > loaders as node splitting occurs. > > > > -- --- Marco Neumann KONA
