incubator-clerezza-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Spicar <daniel.spi...@trialox.org>
Subject Re: directory file size of a graph
Date Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:39:33 GMT
I believe TDB may be tailored towards the use of named graphs. At least I
made the experience when working to adapt Jena SDB. Named graphs will
probably not use so much overhead.

Daniel

On Thursday, August 11, 2011, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
> On 10 Aug 2011, at 15:59, Tsuyoshi Ito wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I tried to copy a felix-cache (latest platform without additional
resources in the graphs) from one pc to another. During the copy process I
realized that each graph is exactly 201,4MB on my mac. So a platform with no
extra data is about 1.2GB - quite big. Each additional graph is using also
200MB.
>>
>> Has this to do with the update of tdb? 3-4 month ago a graph with no
triples was very small.
>>
>> Is it possible to reduce the file size?
>
> Thanks for pointing that out. I just checked the size of bundle 100 and
just on my pretty empty test
> database that I run locally and delete every so often, it is 1.5GB!
>
> $ du -d 2 -h felix-cache/bundle100/
> 1.5G    felix-cache/bundle100//data/tdb-data
> 1.5G    felix-cache/bundle100//data
>  16K    felix-cache/bundle100//version0.0
> 1.5G    felix-cache/bundle100/
>
> So for the Social Web applications I am working where I would like to work
with a lot of graphs, this is not good. I'd like to know the reason for
this. But it does look like a reason to switch to Sesame otherwise...
>
> Henry
>
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Tsuy
>>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message