incubator-clerezza-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reto Bachmann-Gmür ...@farewellutopia.com>
Subject Re: directory file size of a graph
Date Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:04:11 GMT
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Daniel Spicar
<daniel.spicar@trialox.org> wrote:
> 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.

Yes this can very well be. Also the Sparql fastlane would require such a change.

Cheers,
Reto
>
> 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
View raw message