[Nepomuk] [Soprano-devel] Benchmarking storage backends

[Ben Martin]

On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 13:22 +0200, Sebastian Trüg wrote: 
> On Thursday 22 October 2009 12:43:55 Ben Martin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >   As I'm tinkering with a new backend design for soprano I'm wondering
> > what folks use to benchmark nepomuk for KDE4 usage?
> > 
> >   Do folks just use the generic RDF benchmarking:
> > http://esw.w3.org/topic/RdfStoreBenchmarking
> > when comparing sesame2 to virtuoso backend for example?
> > 
> 
> folks, in this case me, don't do much benchmarking at all. So far there was no 
> real need for it since there has never been any choice: in the beginning we 
> only had redland. You know that it is slow by using it for a few days. No need 
> for a benchmark. Then we had sesame2 which is deprecated by Virtuoso simply 
> because the latter has so many advantages. Performance is not even in the top 
> 5. ;)

The two main areas that I'm targeting with my memory mapped soprano
backend are as a quick, read only, in process cache for desktop and for
embedded or pseudo embedded targets like the maemo.

I can definitely see the attraction to Virtuoso on the desktop / LAN but
for mobile devices V might not be available :|

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/nepomuk/attachments/20091023/e0a427a8/attachment.sig