Re: optimization opportunity lost in 2.7.x which existed in 2.6.x?

Sorry, I am looking at this again. Are you saying that in (prefix ((p1: ) (p2: )) (distinct (project (?R1 ?optionalValue) (conditional (assign ((?R1 )) (bgp (triple

TDB command line script instructions

Andy - Following a chat with John Goodwin, I've updated the instructions for running the TDB command line tools. Can you please review the staged changes: http://jena.staging.apache.org/documentation/tdb/commands.html when you have a moment? Thanks, Ian

Re: optimization opportunity lost in 2.7.x which existed in 2.6.x?

Andy, ok, so the group insertion is a different query, but even if that is the case, why can the FILTER assignment not take place in all groups? Note that in 2.6.x, something along these lines did happen (I don't have the plan around, but we because of our performance numbers) Simon From

[jira] [Commented] (JENA-256) Significant performance regression (TDB?) on 2.7.1 RC compared to May 15 build

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-256?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13417721#comment-13417721 ] Simon Helsen commented on JENA-256: --- Unfortunately, the new fixes don't seem to make a big

Re: optimization opportunity lost in 2.7.x which existed in 2.6.x?

On 18/07/12 16:25, Simon Helsen wrote: Andy, I have simplified the scenario a little bit. So the following query PREFIX p1: PREFIX p2: SELECT DISTINCT ?R1 ?optionalValue WHERE { ?R1 p1:pr1 FILTER ( ?R1 = ) OPTIO

Re: optimization opportunity lost in 2.7.x which existed in 2.6.x?

Andy, I have simplified the scenario a little bit. So the following query PREFIX p1: PREFIX p2: SELECT DISTINCT ?R1 ?optionalValue WHERE { ?R1 p1:pr1 FILTER ( ?R1 = ) OPTIONAL { ?R1 p2:pr2 ?optionalValue } } lea

Re: optimization opportunity lost in 2.7.x which existed in 2.6.x?

Simon, The work for this optimization is done in TransformFilterEquality. Is there a simpler (= shorter) query that exhibits this behaviour? Does it depend on the number of OPTIONALS? Aside fro the report, is that structure intended with a top-level BGP at the end of the query, a nested one