> What’s “relatively large”? 100 ms doesn’t sound that bad. That depends on how the system is used... In my initial query I have a union of 6 subqueries that look a bit like that. This brings the query time to 6s. If I run a few queries every day that doesn't matter but our system is used in production (sparql is used behind the scenes for all the requests on our website), and in that kind of context 100ms is huge, 6s is just unacceptable.
> Re. syntax, I think you could shorten the query using FILTER (?resp IN Thanks, it's nicer! (In case anyone wonders, it has no impact on performance) Best, -- Elie
