[Nepomuk] Re: Presentation, queries and other stuff
Sebastian Trüg
trueg at kde.org
Mon Mar 7 14:30:18 CET 2011
You get soprano at soprano.sf.net.
As for compiling: check the INSTALL file that comes with it.
Maybe before trying to compile you should install soprano-devel from
your distribution to make sure you get all the dependencies for building it.
Cheers,
Sebastian
On 03/07/2011 12:42 PM, Ignacio Serantes wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Sebastian Trüg <trueg at kde.org
> <mailto:trueg at kde.org>> wrote:
>
> I forgot one thing:
>
> about the web interface. Nepomuk is running Virtuoso in lite mode. To
> disable that you need to hack Soprano and comment line 328 in
> soprano/backends/virtuoso/virtuosocontroller.cpp.
> Sadly there is no configuration option for that at the moment.
>
>
> All I know about compiling in linux is:
> 1) Download and uncompress tgz.
> 2) ./configure && make && sudo make install
>
> Could Soprano be compiled with my skills? Where I can download the tgz?
>
> Cheers,
> Sebastian
>
> On 03/06/2011 02:33 PM, Ignacio Serantes wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Sebastian Trüg <trueg at kde.org
> <mailto:trueg at kde.org>
> > <mailto:trueg at kde.org <mailto:trueg at kde.org>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Sorry for the lag but I'm really busy.
> >
> > On 03/02/2011 11:57 AM, Ignacio Serantes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Sebastian Trüg
> <trueg at kde.org <mailto:trueg at kde.org>
> > <mailto:trueg at kde.org <mailto:trueg at kde.org>>
> > > <mailto:trueg at kde.org <mailto:trueg at kde.org>
> <mailto:trueg at kde.org <mailto:trueg at kde.org>>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > This is worrying because many problems can't be solved with
> brutal
> > > queries with brutal inner joins. This stuff must be added if
> you want
> > > that nepomuk db works with a limited amount of RAM and CPU.
> >
> > Please make suggestions.
> >
> >
> > > The story of my life, I'm always be an step before a working
> > nepomuk :).
> > > Can you explain me a little bit how are this final
> optimizations?
> >
> > A better visibility check directly on the resource. This also
> requires a
> > nao:userVisible property on all resources which is done by a
> new class.
> >
> >
> > Great!, precisely this is the big problem I found with your
> queries and
> > you resolved adding a flag. Please, check the following simple queries
> > with one string tests. Strings are selected to obtain result sets with
> > different size.
> >
> > Test #01 [ API_H1, (dorama)]: 93 results in 0.06073117
> > seconds
> > Test #02 [ API_H2, (dorama)]: 93 results in 1.84762883
> > seconds
> > Test #03 [ API_H3, (dorama)]: 93 results in
> 2.01492691 seconds
> > Test #04 [ API_H4, (dorama)]: 93 results in
> 1.91813993 seconds
> > Test #05 [ API_H5, (dorama)]: 93 results in
> 1.60597801 seconds
> > Test #06 [ API, (dorama)]: 93 results in
> 2.23234606 seconds
> > Test #07 [ API_H1, (ha ji won)]: 2 results in 0.01688004
> > seconds
> > Test #08 [ API_H2, (ha ji won)]: 2 results in
> 5.00310612 seconds
> > Test #09 [ API_H3, (ha ji won)]: 2 results in
> 4.11244702 seconds
> > Test #10 [ API_H4, (ha ji won)]: 2 results in
> 3.95332003 seconds
> > Test #11 [ API_H5, (ha ji won)]: 2 results in
> 3.90592694 seconds
> > Test #12 [ API, (ha ji won)]: 2 results in
> 11.18835807 seconds
> > Test #13 [ API_H1, (music)]: 5434 results in
> 1.39107108 seconds
> > Test #14 [ API_H2, (music)]: 5420 results in
> 4.74685478 seconds
> > Test #15 [ API_H3, (music)]: 5420 results in
> 5.27211499 seconds
> > Test #16 [ API_H4, (music)]: 5420 results in
> 5.14297509 seconds
> > Test #17 [ API_H5, (music)]: 5420 results in
> 4.99993420 seconds
> > Test #18 [ API, (music)]: 5420 results in
> 9.88414216 seconds
> >
> > The query is the same but I applied minor changes:
> > API_H1: is the same query without visibility inner join so easy to
> > wonder where is the main performance problem.
> > API_H2: is the query using a subquery and not an inner join. Query is
> > equivalent (A U B) X C = (A X C) U (B X C). Because subquery is
> the same
> > could be optimized by query optimizer and, because intermediate joins
> > result sets are small union is fast. This is easy to see with a simple
> > SELECT DISTINCT * in both queries and comparing result sets.
> > API_H3: is like H1 without using optional to obtain columns.
> > API_H4: is API_H3 with a different filter construction method.
> > API_H5: is API_H3 with another different filter construction method.
> > API: is the query created by the API so no additional explanation is
> > needed. It is the last one to give it cache advantage over other
> queries.
> > Note: API_H1 results number differs in "music" case because this query
> > is not equivalent to the other five.
> >
> > This is an initial test and with my current db knowledge caution is
> > mandatory but here are some initial conclusions:
> > 1) As in SQL, subqueries increment performance
> > over indiscriminated inner joins in large results sets. I'm not
> sure if
> > this is general to all tripletstore dbms or only to Virtuoso that is a
> > rdbms with added tripletstore functionally. Seems like search API must
> > build queries use less joins and more subqueries.
> > 2) Optional seems haven't performance impact extracting column values
> > but queries are less easy to read and you must write more
> characters :).
> > 3) API_H3, API_H4 and API_H5 has similar times so without a profiling
> > tool and more test is difficult to wonder what is the best. Probably
> > query optimizer is doing it's job and, in fact, there is no
> differences
> > at all.
> >
> > In "sparql_test.spql" attach there are the queries.
> >
> > I go back to stored procedures because this problem could be solved
> > using Virtuoso. You have the need to filter for an value always so you
> > construct a relation any time you need to filter for this value. The
> > problem with this approach is that any time you do a query you must
> > build again this relation and this is time consuming. And the
> problem is
> > more and more serious when data grows.
> >
> > In my db there are 23.766 results to userVisible = True and doing all
> > queries with a join with a table like this is not a good idea and we
> > can't trust that query optimizers do all your job without any
> > help. There are some solutions to this problem at db level:
> >
> > 1) The (probably) ideal one, create a view in the dbms using your
> query
> > and use always this to filter your data. If query is very simple and
> > dbms is good this is automaintained and fast because view don't exists
> > and is only a different representation of data in your db.
> >
> > 2) If the first approach don't works, view is slow and general db
> > performance is degrading, you must create a table to store this
> data and
> > use stored procedures and triggers to maintain this table. A view from
> > first case and a physical table is the same at query language
> level so,
> > if we tried the first case, most of the work is done and your queries
> > need only minor changes or even none.
> >
> > 3) The easy one, add a property with and index to do the filter. You
> > told that this is your approach and works but you must be cautious
> > because now is visibility, later is user restriction, later devices
> > restriction and so on, and you can't solve all your filter
> problems with
> > properties as you can't solve all your query problems with joins.
> > Increase your size register and add so many indexes could have a
> > performance penalty when your data grows but note that this
> differs from
> > one dbms to other so there is no general rules.
> >
> > You can solve this problem in application layer too but, if the
> problem
> > is db related must be solved at db level if if possible. Obviously
> this
> > is a relaxed rule.
> >
> > Because, sadly, there is no perfect solution you must try
> > different approaches and use the solution that better suits to any
> case
> > and, here, profiling tools are your friends. About this, I will try to
> > activate Virtuoso web interface to activate profiling but I can't. I
> > download and compile Virtuoso and with my instance web interface is
> > available but I can't imagine how activate it in Nepomuk's Virtuoso
> > instance. I can copying the db and use it in my Virtuoso instance but
> > this is uncomfortably if I need doing changes in data using Nepomuk.
> >
> > I found many errors in soprano-virtuoso db log. I created a db from
> > scratch and this errors persists: no method of name existsNode,
> > getClobVal, getNumVal, getSchemaURL etc... I'm informing you because I
> > don't know if this errors are relevant or not.
> >
> > I'm sorry if I'm not much help but I'm doing my best. I never worked
> > before with Sparql and tripletstore but I'm learning.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sebastian
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nepomuk mailing list
> > Nepomuk at kde.org <mailto:Nepomuk at kde.org>
> <mailto:Nepomuk at kde.org <mailto:Nepomuk at kde.org>>
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Ignacio
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nepomuk mailing list
> > Nepomuk at kde.org <mailto:Nepomuk at kde.org>
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
> _______________________________________________
> Nepomuk mailing list
> Nepomuk at kde.org <mailto:Nepomuk at kde.org>
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Ignacio
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nepomuk mailing list
> Nepomuk at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
More information about the Nepomuk
mailing list