Mark Waser wrote:
Hey Ben,
Thanks for explaining so clearly.
I do understand graph databases and their querying challenges. :-)
What I've not heard about is the successful application of indexes to
these problems given that indexes in this case (as far as I know) are
dependent upon the relationship between entities rather than just upon
the indexed entity itself (which is also why
location points are slightly difficult though soluble because they are
only two dimensional while space-time becomes rapidly nastier as you
add another dimension).
Are you actually creating and maintaining indexes
Yep...
or are you just calculating index values for a single use and then
discarding them?
Mark
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:51 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Development Environments for AI (a few
non-religious comments!)
Mark Waser wrote:
I am pretty confident that the specialized indices we use
(implemented directly in C++) are significantly faster than
implementing comparable indices in an enterprise DB would be.
Wow. You've floored me given that indexes are key to what
enterprise DBs do well. What are the special
requirements/functionalities of the indices that you believe that
enterprise DBs are not *optimized* to handle?
Look at the literature regarding "graph databases" for some general
background in this area... e.g. here is a random presentation on
graph DB's...
www.ciw.cl/material/irw-2005/2005-irw-gutierrez.pdf
Novamente's internal AtomTable is a customized, in-RAM hypergraph DB,
with much relationship to prior graph DB's..
Another example, beyond standard graph DB stuff, is efficient lookup
of spatiotemporal entities based on which space, time or spacetime
points they are near to ...
-- Ben
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 6:34 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Development Environments
for AI (a few non-religious comments!)
>> Also, why would 32 -> 64 bit be a problem, provided you planned
for
it in advance?
Name all the large, long-term projects that you know of that
*haven't* gotten bitten by something like this. Now, name all of
the large, long-term projects that you know of that HAVE gotten
bitten repeatedly by the state of the art moving past something
that they have custom programmed and can't easily integrate. If
the second number isn't a lot larger than the first, you're not
living in my world. :-)
I think you're exaggerating the issue. Porting the NM code from
32->64 bit was a pain but not a huge deal, certainly a trivial % of
the total work done on the project.
I do not think an enterprise DB would serve well for Novamente. I
am pretty confident that the specialized indices we use
(implemented directly in C++) are significantly faster than
implementing comparable indices in an enterprise DB would be.
However, the advantage of an enterprise DB would be that you'd
avoid some of the work involved in making NM a distributed system
--- work we know how to do, but haven't done yet, because it's
time-consuming...
-- Ben
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
