[Mulgara-general] iTQL question regarding the relationshipbetween query size and query speed
DMoll at myAperio.com
Thu Apr 17 14:18:21 UTC 2008
> Any chance you can go to 1.2? It's definitely better.
I pulled down Rev 793 (1.2.1) and set it up. We're also using the
1.6_02 JVM - is there any reason to use a 1.5 JVM over the 1.6?
> <Asset:num> <rdfs:type> <viewpoint:Asset>
> <Asset:num> <viewpoint:TimeStamp> 'Date Time Literal'
> <Asset:num> <viewpoint:name> 'Name Literal'
> Two things to ask here. Are you really using rdfs:type? This isn't a
> known name in the rdfs space. It should be rdf:type. Also, are the
> URIs really of the form "asset:1234" or is asset a namespace? (this is
> relevant to a suggestion I have below).
Sorry, I was condensing to save space. It actually looks like:
'Date Time Literal'
That's just for the unit test that we set up to measure performance. In
our production server, <Asset:num> is actually:
It's just that the test wasn't set up to generate a GUID for each Asset.
I was not aware that the full URI was treated differently than the
abbreviated version when no aliasing was defined. I also assumed that
the 22-rdf-syntax-ns was abbreviated to rdfs, but I usually just throw
in shorthand because it's faster than copy/pasting URIs from various
We're testing against 1.1 and 1.2 now, the test was taking longer after
switching to 1.2 last night, but I had not set up the logging that
Andrae suggested. I'm setting up tests right now to confirm prior
behavior and verify what I was seeing yesterday as I am not convinced I
didn't change too many things and compromised the validity of the
More information about the Mulgara-general