On 06.01.21 13:33, Deepali Singhavi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find the requested details as below:
>
> Dataset - TDB2 Dataset
> Fuseki configuration- I am using the same index config file to start fuseki
> server. What do you mean by fuseki configuration sorry I am not getting it.
The config file for Fuseki which contains your text index config. In a
first glance this is the Fuseki config, not a Lucene config. The
App-Assembler file. Please post it here as content if the attachment
doesn't work.
> number of results of the query - There are 11 triples getting returned from
> above query
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Deepali
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 5:02 PM Lorenz Buehmann <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ok, thanks for sharing the spreadsheet.
>>
>> We need more configuration infos: dataset, Fuseki configuration, number
>> of results of the query.
>>
>> We didn't get the attachment of the assembler config.
>>
>> With no optimizer used, the text:query triple pattern should be
>> evaluated first - and depending on the number of matching literals,
>> faster than a scan with filter. But it depends. Also not sure if
>> text:query is preferred in query optimization, but I think so. Andy
>> knows better indeed
>>
>> On 04.01.21 12:11, Deepali Singhavi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sample size means number of triples?
>>>
>>> I have tried with 6000,40000,50000 and even with 1,00,000 triples.
>>> Please find the performance report attached with this email.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Deepali
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:03 PM Lorenz Buehmann
>>> <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What is the sample size here? I mean, for a low number of literals
>>> it's
>>> obvious that String containment check in Java isn't that slow. The
>>> difference will most likely come from a large scan over literals with
>>> containment check whereas with a Lucene index - which is basically an
>>> inverted index - it's obviously more efficient to lookup terms for
>> the
>>> documents.
>>>
>>> On 04.01.21 05:56, Deepali Singhavi wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I am trying to implement indexing for Fuseki using
>>> > Lucene/ElasticSearch using an assembler configuration file
>>> (attaching
>>> > file for reference) but there is no improvement in performance
>>> > (performance without index is better than with index).
>>> >
>>> > I am using sample data from *films.ttl* file.
>>> >
>>> > *Sample Query *
>>> > PREFIX text: <http://jena.apache.org/text#>
>>> > PREFIX rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>
>>> > select ?subject ?object
>>> > WHERE {
>>> > # Without Index
>>> > #?subject rdfs:label ?object .
>>> > #FILTER contains(?object,"City")
>>> > #With Index
>>> > ?subject text:query (rdfs:label "city").
>>> > ?subject rdfs:label ?object .
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > *Performance:*
>>> >
>>> > No of Triples
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > No of Runs
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Without Index
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Lucene Index
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ElasticSearch Index
>>> >
>>> > 6918
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 1
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 16ms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 18ms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 19ms
>>> >
>>> > 2
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 29ms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 32ms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 32ms
>>> >
>>> > 3
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 22ms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 23ms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 21ms
>>> >
>>> > 4
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 22ms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 14ms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 53ms
>>> >
>>> > 5
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 15ms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 19ms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 18ms
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Please let me know if any other information is required from my
>> side
>>> > and please suggest how I can improve performance.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Deepali
>>> >
>>>
