Hi Ivan,

  Thanks for the explanation.  The difference in speed that I am seeing for 
RDF/XML vs. NTriples is significant.  With the RDF/XML format I am getting a 
speed of 6000 triples/second where as for NTriples I am getting a speed of 2400 
triples/second.  I am not sure if such big difference can be accounted to 
random variations in process/thread scheduling.  

  Moreover I ran my tests twice and both the times I saw the same results, 
which indicates that there might be something else going on.

Kunal

Ivan Mikhailov <[email protected]> wrote: Kunal,

I guess that RDF/XML and N3 should demonstrate similar speed of text
parsing, in kilobytes of source text per second.

If data are the same then the count of triple insertions multiplied by
average insertion time is same for both cases and the difference is
obviously in some other place.

TURTLE and the like are parsed by flex+bison code, RDF/XML parser is
written by hands. Nevertheless both are quite fast and random variations
in process/thread scheduling may provide bigger difference than
serialization format.

Best Regards,

Ivan Mikhailov,
OpenLink Software.


On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 12:39 -0700, Kunal Patel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>   I have got the same RDF data in two formats, the RDF/XML
> serialization format and the NTriples format.  I tried loading the
> RDF/XML serialization format using the DB.DBA.RDF_LOAD_RDFXML_MT and
> the NTriples format using the DB.DBA.TTLP_MT.  
> 
>   I was hoping that the NTriples format would load much faster then
> the RDF/XML serialization format, but on the contrary the RDF/XML
> serialization format loaded faster than the NTriples format.  Is that
> the expected behavior, or am I missing any thing.
> 
> Kunal
> 
> P.S. I am using the NTriples format not the N3 format or the turtle
> format.
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.



 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Reply via email to