What’s “relatively large”? 100 ms doesn’t sound that bad. Re. syntax, I think you could shorten the query using FILTER (?resp IN (...)) https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#func-in
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 20.03, Élie Roux <[email protected]> wrote: > P.S.: some triples were missing for the dataset to work, here's an > updated version. I've noted that the performance is directly > proportional to the number of tests in the FILTER, it's about 100ms by > comparison... that seems a little excessive... > > Best, > -- > Elie >
