[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-624?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15006014#comment-15006014
]
Andy Seaborne commented on JENA-624:
------------------------------------
I have some tests to cover this that I've been using for JENA-1064 for for this
JIRA. They apply to all dataset implementations. Give me a chance to sort them
out first. The SPARQL scripted tests will also be testing this. It's where I
found the issue in the first place when I switched the dataset implementation
they use.
> Develop a new in-memory RDF Dataset implementation
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JENA-624
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-624
> Project: Apache Jena
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Andy Seaborne
> Assignee: A. Soroka
> Labels: java, linked_data, rdf
>
> The current (Jan 2014) Jena in-memory dataset uses a general purpose
> container that works for any storage technology for graphs together with
> in-memory graphs.
> This project would develop a new implementation design specifically for RDF
> datasets (triples and quads) and efficient SPARQL execution, for example,
> using multi-core parallel operations and/or multi-version concurrent
> datastructures to maximise true parallel operation.
> This is a system project suitable for someone interested in datatbase
> implementation, datastructure design and implementation, operating systems or
> distributed systems.
> Note that TDB can operate in-memory using a simulated disk with
> copy-in/copy-out semantics for disk-level operations. It is for faithful
> testing TDB infrastructure and is not designed performance, general in-memory
> use or use at scale. While lesson may be learnt from that system, TDB
> in-memory is not the answer here.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
