yes
:)
atle
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Mattias Persson
wrote:
> 2010/6/16 Atle Prange :
>> Yes, babudb would for example be very fast for a primary key index.
>>
>> How do you think a trie implemented in neo4j would compare to the
>> others? One could have relationship types for each lette
2010/6/16 Atle Prange :
> Yes, babudb would for example be very fast for a primary key index.
>
> How do you think a trie implemented in neo4j would compare to the
> others? One could have relationship types for each letter. Then a
> search for the word "faster", would involve six
> Node.getRelatio
Yes, babudb would for example be very fast for a primary key index.
How do you think a trie implemented in neo4j would compare to the
others? One could have relationship types for each letter. Then a
search for the word "faster", would involve six
Node.getRelationShip(RelationshipType,Direction) c
I have given the information about the benchmark to the babudb guys.
Hopefully we will have a performance war coming up.
atle
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Mattias Persson
wrote:
> 2010/6/11 Atle Prange :
>> Regarding the performance:
>>
>> I have tried to tweak Babudb, but could not get any
2010/6/11 Atle Prange :
> Regarding the performance:
>
> I have tried to tweak Babudb, but could not get any more out of it
> than you did. I guess when you put 5M entries at once, there is only
> so much tweaking one can do. (At least for babudb). It seems odd
> though, since babudb is a less comp
Regarding the performance:
I have tried to tweak Babudb, but could not get any more out of it
than you did. I guess when you put 5M entries at once, there is only
so much tweaking one can do. (At least for babudb). It seems odd
though, since babudb is a less complicated framework, with less
featur
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Mattias Persson wrote:
>
> BabuDb has a
>
> db.prefixLookup( "key|value|" )
>
> method so that's the one I'm using.
>
I wonder how well that scales. I'd like to see some performance figures from
indexing massive volumes and then doing lookup based on prefixLoo
2010/6/11 Tobias Ivarsson :
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Mattias Persson > wrote:
>
>> I tried performance of BabuDB recently. I'm not very used to key-value
>> stores, but I chose this layout of the keys/values:
>>
>> key: key|value|id
>> value: id
>>
>
> I might be missing something he
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Mattias Persson wrote:
> I tried performance of BabuDB recently. I'm not very used to key-value
> stores, but I chose this layout of the keys/values:
>
> key: key|value|id
> value: id
>
I might be missing something here, but from my interpretation, what you
I tried performance of BabuDB recently. I'm not very used to key-value
stores, but I chose this layout of the keys/values:
key: key|value|id
value: id
I chose this layout since there can be many nodes (ids) indexed for
each given key/value pair.
Now, I found the insertion performance to be
10 matches
Mail list logo
