This is the kind of (technical) feedback that makes sense as it is centred on need. It acknowledges that more needs to be done as we are not ready for what we expect of ourselves in the first place. 

In this day and age of big data, we are a very public place where a lot of initiatives gravitate to. If the WMF wants to retain its relevance, it is to face its challenges. Maybe the WDQS can steal a page out of the architecture in what Magnus build. It is very much replicable and multiple instances have been running. This is not to say that it becomes more and more relevant to have the Wikidata toolkit available from Labs with as many instances as needed.

On 12 February 2016 at 00:04, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> We basically have two choices: either we offer a limited interface that only
> allows for a narrow range of queries to be run at all. Or we offer a very
> general interface that can run arbitrary queries, but we impose limits on time
> and memory consumption. I would actually prefer the first option, because it's
> more predictable, and doesn't get people's hopes up too far. What do you think?

That would require implementing pretty smart SPARQL parser... I don't
think it worth the investment of time. I'd rather put caps on runtime
and maybe also on parallel queries per IP, to ensure fair access. We may
also have a way to run longer queries - in fact, we'll need it anyway if
we want to automate lists - but that is longer term, we'll need to
figure out infrastructure for that and how we allocate access.

Stas Malyshev

Wikidata mailing list