I find the implied figures hard to believe, as Lorenz has said you will need to share your findings via some other service since this mailing list does not permit attachments.
Many people use Fuseki and TDB to host datasets in the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of triples in production environments e.g. much of UK Open Data from govt agencies is backed by Fuseki/TDB in one form or another. Also the memory usage of Fuseki/TDB cannot realistically be reduced to something as crude as MB/triples because the memory management going on within the JVM and TDB is far more complicated than that, see my previous reply to your earlier questions [1] Rob [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf76be4fba2d9679f346dd7482d9925293eb768bbedce3feff7bb4376%40%3Cusers.jena.apache.org%3E On 16/04/2020, 08:47, "Lorenz Buehmann" <buehm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote: No attachments possible on this mailing list. Use some external service to share attachments please or try to embed it as image (in case it's just an image) as you did in your other thread. Or just use Gist On 16.04.20 09:27, Luís Moreira de Sousa wrote: > Dear all, > > I have been tweaking the tdb.node2nodeid_cache_size and > tdb.nodeid2node_cache_size parameters as Andy suggested. They indeed reduce the RAM used by Fuseki, but not to a point where it becomes usable. In attachment you can find a chart plotting memory use increase against dataset size. There is no visible correlation, but on average each additional triplet requires upwards of 30 MB of RAM. > > The actual datasets I work with count triplets in the millions (from relational databases with tens of thousands of records). Even if I ever convince a data centre to provide the required amounts of RAM to a single container, the costs will be prohibitive. > > Can anyone provide their experiences with Fuseki in production? Particularly in micro-services/containerised platforms? > > Thank you. > > -- > Luís > >
