| Column-store support for RDF data management: not all swans are white |
| Full text |
Pdf
(642 KB)
|
Source
|
Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment
archive
Volume 1 , Issue 2 (August 2008)
table of contents
SESSION: EXPERIMENTS AND ANALYSES
table of contents
Pages 1553-1563
Year of Publication: 2008
ISSN:2150-8097
|
|
Authors
|
|
Lefteris Sidirourgos
|
CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
|
Romulo Goncalves
|
CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
|
Martin Kersten
|
CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
|
Niels Nes
|
CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
|
Stefan Manegold
|
CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
|
| Publisher |
|
| Bibliometrics |
Downloads (6 Weeks): 18, Downloads (12 Months): 129, Citation Count: 1
|
|
|
ABSTRACT
This paper reports on the results of an independent evaluation of the techniques presented in the VLDB 2007 paper "Scalable Semantic Web Data Management Using Vertical Partitioning", authored by D. Abadi, A. Marcus, S. R. Madden, and K. Hollenbach [1]. We revisit the proposed benchmark and examine both the data and query space coverage. The benchmark is extended to cover a larger portion of the query space in a canonical way. Repeatability of the experiments is assessed using the code base obtained from the authors. Inspired by the proposed vertically-partitioned storage solution for RDF data and the performance figures using a column-store, we conduct a complementary analysis of state-of-the-art RDF storage solutions. To this end, we employ MonetDB/SQL, a fully-functional open source column-store, and a well-known -- for its performance -- commercial row-store DBMS. We implement two relational RDF storage solutions -- triple-store and vertically-partitioned -- in both systems. This allows us to expand the scope of [1] with the performance characterization along both dimensions -- triple-store vs. vertically-partitioned and row-store vs. column-store -- individually, before analyzing their combined effects. A detailed report of the experimental test-bed, as well as an in-depth analysis of the parameters involved, clarify the scope of the solution originally presented and position the results in a broader context by covering more systems.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
|
| |
2
|
Barton Library Catalog Data. http://simile.mit.edu/rdf-test-data/barton/.
|
| |
3
|
|
| |
4
|
|
| |
5
|
S. Harris and N. Gibbins. 3store: Efficient Bulk RDF Storage. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Practical and Scalable Semantic Systems, pages 1--15, 2003.
|
| |
6
|
MonetDB/SQL. http://monetdb.cwi.nl/SQL.
|
| |
7
|
SPARQL Query Language for RDF. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/.
|
| |
8
|
Mike Stonebraker , Daniel J. Abadi , Adam Batkin , Xuedong Chen , Mitch Cherniack , Miguel Ferreira , Edmond Lau , Amerson Lin , Sam Madden , Elizabeth O'Neil , Pat O'Neil , Alex Rasin , Nga Tran , Stan Zdonik, C-store: a column-oriented DBMS, Proceedings of the 31st international conference on Very large data bases, August 30-September 02, 2005, Trondheim, Norway
|
| |
9
|
K. Wilkinson. Jena Property Table Implementation. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems, pages 54--68, 2006.
|
| |
10
|
K. Wilkinson, C. Sayers, H. Kuno, and D. Reynolds. Efficient RDF Storage and Retrieval in Jena2. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Semantic Web and Databases, pages 131--150, 2003.
|
|