At the level of that description, they are much the same.
TDB2 differs in actual inline encoding of literals (it keeps the datatype).
TDB2 B+Trees are "copy on-write" (MVCC) and TDB2 has a different
transaction mechanism resulting in arbitrary large transaction changes
being supported.
TDB2
It's for TDB 1 right? Is there a document for TDB 2? I couldn't find one
Regards
Siddhesh
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 8:48 pm Rob Vesse, wrote:
> It's here - http://jena.apache.org/documentation/tdb/architecture.html
>
> Rob
>
> On 22/02/2019, 04:03, "Ekaterina Danilova"
> wrote:
>
> Thank you,
It's here - http://jena.apache.org/documentation/tdb/architecture.html
Rob
On 22/02/2019, 04:03, "Ekaterina Danilova" wrote:
Thank you, it was exactly what I needed. It is still nice to hear what
others think about my idea of data storage as resources and I think I will
stick to th
TDB's design is given in official documentation here:
https://jena.apache.org/documentation/tdb/architecture.html
ajs6f
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 5:02 AM, Ekaterina Danilova
> wrote:
>
> Thank you, it was exactly what I needed. It is still nice to hear what
> others think about my idea of data st
Thank you, it was exactly what I needed. It is still nice to hear what
others think about my idea of data storage as resources and I think I will
stick to that option, but TDB storage logic was quite unclear to me. Would
be great if it was mentioned in official documentation since I couldn't
find i
Since I don't think anyone answered your specific original question
TDB and TDB2 both use dictionary encoding (and in fact most RDF stores use some
variation on this). Basically they map each unique RDF term (whether URI,
string, blank node etc) to a consistent internal identifier and use this
On 15/02/2019 13:56, Ekaterina Danilova wrote:
I have a dataset describing IT infrastructure. It consists of many
lightweight named graphs (about 15 statements each) describing different
components.
I understand that there is little sense in using RDF if store is used
simply as key-value datab
I have a dataset describing IT infrastructure. It consists of many
lightweight named graphs (about 15 statements each) describing different
components.
I understand that there is little sense in using RDF if store is used
simply as key-value database, but I have 2 reasons for RDF :
1) It is nice an
You are conflating several things here. Jean-Marc is quite right to advise you
to use identifiers and not labels for the entities in your data, up to some
limit that will depend on your resourcing and purposes. If you don't do that,
there is no purpose to using Jena (or RDF at all), because in t
>
> No , both better in performance, and in the spirit of Sem Web
Hm, the performance when using value as string or URI to resource was quite
same. On 10 000 examples it was 4.46ms vs 4.44ms. I didn't notice any
difference even when I tested string of 1000 characters length.
But I understood your
Le ven. 15 févr. 2019 à 13:45, Ekaterina Danilova <
katja.danilov...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
> I understand that you have a database of Vcard stuff, but one must keep in
> > mind that Semantic Web is all about creating links, filling strings is
> > secondary.
> >
> So, does it mean that cr
Thanks for pointing out the issue with New York. However, this is just the
test data which I made for an example, Vcard was just easy choice. My
actual database is not about Vcard and consists of self-made properties
created with smth like this:
public PropertyImpl( String uri )
The idea of my app
First this a bad practice:
http://people/JohnSmith http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#Region "New
York" .
You should do
http://people/JohnSmith, http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#Region
dbpedia:NewYork .
that is ,
http://dbpedia.org/resource/New_York
possibly with another object property l
Hello
i would like to ask how TDB2 and Fuseki manages big amounts of string data
(especially repeating data) and what it the best practices. Does it
optimize it somehow? Or is it on us to do some improvements.
For example, we have a TDB2 storage which we access via Fuseki and example
named graph l
14 matches
Mail list logo