Hello Sebastian,

Le lun. 17 juin 2019 à 13:34, Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> a écrit :

Hi Amirouche,

On 16.06.19 23:01, Amirouche Boubekki wrote:
Le mer. 12 juin 2019 à 19:27, Amirouche Boubekki <amirouche.boubekki@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hello Sebastian,

First thanks a lot for the reply. I started to believe that what I was saying was complete nonsense.

Le mer. 12 juin 2019 à 16:51, Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> a écrit :

Hi Amirouche,

Any open data projects that are running open databases with FoundationDB and WiredTiger? Where can I query them?

 
Thanks for asking. I will set up a wiredtiger instance of wikidata. I need a few days, maybe a week (or two :)).

I could setup FoundationDB on a single machine instead but it will require more time (maybe one more week).

Also, it will not support geo-queries. I will try to make labelling work but with a custom syntax (inspired form SPARQL).

I figured that anything that is not SPARQL will not be convincing. Getting my engine 100% compatible is much work.

The example deployment I have given in the previous message should be enough to convince you that
FoundationDB can store WDQS.

Don get me wrong, I don want you to set it up. I am asking about a reference project, that has:

1. open data and an open database

2. decent amount of data

3. several years of running it.

Like OpenStreetMap and PostreSQL, MediaWiki/Wikipedia -> MySQL, DBpedia -> Virtuoso.

This would be a very good point for it. Otherwise I would consider it a sales trap, 

i.e. some open source which does not work really until you switch to the commercial product, same for Neptune.

Now I think, only Apple knows how to use it. Any other reference projects?

 
That is not the response that I would have liked to have. It is a far too common response,
that does not echo state-of-the-art engineering practices in other industries.

Simply said: caveat emptor.

Here is a conversation about distributed database testing:

> [Someone] didn't bother running Jepsen against FDB because foundationdb's
> internal testing was much more rigorous that Jepsen. The foundationdb team
> ran it themselves and it passed with flying colors

Since we are still about nay sayers and fanboys. One of the founders of FDB is so
convinced by their strategy (that boils down to testing via a simulation) is what made
FDB possible, that he started another company to do so across the industry.

ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fFDFbi3toc
ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFSPwJFXVlw

Like I said in the previous mail:

> [The proposal] could be reworked to emphasize the fact that a benchmarking tool
> must be put together to be able to tell which solution is best.

The benchmarking tool must check the performance but also the correctness. I know
about https://github.com/webdata/BEAR/ and https://project-hobbit.eu/ not sure whether
they do all of that. And I don't know whether they can be adapted to reproduce WDQS
workload.

I just figured that I would not be the good person to do that job, because I am biased
toward a solution...

That is a strong requirement for anything going forward.

Have a good day,


Amirouche ~ amz3