On 2/7/23 1:57 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Ok, so I finally read Tpt's rundown of Blazegraph alternatives, and it's great. Thank you!
Press, articles, blog posts, videos * Blogs o Is there something better than Blazegraph for Wikidata? <https://thomas.pellissier-tanon.fr/blog/2023-01-15-wdqs.html>What's the latest on benchmarking alternatives and future migration?
- WDBench seems actively maintained
https://github.com/MillenniumDB/WDBench; any narrative update since last year's paper? Is something else used internally?
- The WDQS backend updates
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/WDQS_backend_update last year were informative. Are there updated risk projections + timelines?
Wikidata mailing list --wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org/mes... To unsubscribe send an email towikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
All,
For the record, the following is inaccurate:
Virtuoso is a SPARQL implementation developed for more than a decade by a small company, OpenLink Software. It is at its core a SQL database targeting OLAP workloads with a layer on top converting SPARQL to SQL. It seems to provide great performances, powering very large endpoints like Uniprot. *However, according to WDQS Backend Alternative work, Virtuoso is also tuned for bulk-load with high-frequency read, and not for read/write.* But, this is also the case with Blazegraph. So, it might be interesting to do a good benchmark to see if it actually outperforms Blazegraph or not.
Virtuoso is a high-performance and scalable multi-model DBMS with a very strong OLTP pedigree -- FWIW .
We will soon be releasing pre-loaded and pre-configured Wikidata instance editions for both the AWS and Azure clouds that anyone can test for themselves.