it occurs to me, > On 2019-09-28, at 09:37:20, James Anderson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > while one might want to compare the two based on the factors > > - capacity > - capabilities (including conformance) > - query execution speed > - statement import rate > - resource requirements > > it would be difficult to used published reports to compare fuseki and rya. > the rya performance assessments used lubm, but nothing equivalent is readily > found for jena. > the rya assessment included rdf3x as the foil, but there no comparison > between rdf3x and jena is readily found. > > neglecting for the moment issues related to capabilities and import rate, it > is possible gain some insight from the comparison between rdf3x and rya which > is present in the rya report from 2013 > (https://www.usna.edu/Users/cs/adina/research/Rya_ISjournal2013.pdf), on page > 25: > <page25image624.png> > > the diagram indicates rough parity between rya and rdf3x. > the report text suggests this explicitly. (p22) > the text is not explicit as to the respective run-time environment. > it does report that the rya execution set-up comprised twenty-two total nodes > with eight cores each. > were one to neglect the storage nodes, on the grounds that at the lubm-2000 > scale, which was the basis for the comparison, the respective storage > requirements were equivalent, the ratio of nodes used to execute a query > remains twelve to one.
in addition, that rdf-3x was (and is still?) single-threaded. > how much that ratio in resources required to achieve performance parity > matters will depend on how important capacity is for a given use case. > >> On 2019-09-25, at 06:25:09, Laura Morales <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Now that Rya has been promoted to top-level project, I'd like to hear your >> comments about Fuseki vs Rya. Pros&Cons of both, when and why I should use >> one or the other. Thanks! > > >
