Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-discussion] Performance degraded with MS SQLServer backend for Protege 3.4.8

Timothy Redmond tredmond at stanford.edu
Fri Aug 24 13:49:29 PDT 2012


On 8/23/12 12:11 PM, Ron Schultz wrote:
> Are there any benchmarks for expected performance of the database 
> backend? Can I expect to manage thousands, or hundreds of thousands, 
> or millions of records with the backend? Are there any user 
> experiences reported for using Protege backend for ontologies with 
> hundred of thousands instances?

I think that, for the Protege database backend, this is the wrong 
metric.  The problem is that the database is an internal structure and a 
record count does not relate to the nature of the ontology being 
loaded.  In particular, row counts might be very different for the 
Protege 3 database backend and the Clark-Parsia database backend which 
both work with the Protege 3 api.  That said there was a group that 
worked with a database on a day to day basis that had somewhere near 2 
million rows.

More ontological measurements of that same ontology include:

  * 1.2 million axioms
  * 121 thousand logical axioms
  * 87 thousand classes


-Timothy



> Thanks
> Ron
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Jonathan Carter 
> <jonathan.carter at e-asolutions.com 
> <mailto:jonathan.carter at e-asolutions.com>> wrote:
>
>     Some of my user community and I have noticed that the performance
>     of Protege 3 (Frames) has changed significantly for the worse
>     between version 3.4.4 and version 3.4.8 when using a MS SQLServer
>     database backend.
>
>     Protege 3.4.4 performs well with large numbers of instances backed
>     by SQLServer whereas 3.4.8 seems noticeably slow.
>     Performance is much the same for both versions (or possibly better
>     in Protege 3.4.8) for file-based projects and MySQL database backends.
>
>     Is there anything that's changed in the database handling between
>     these versions that might explain this (and might also be in 3.5B)?
>     Has anyone else had a problem with performance and database
>     backends with 3.4.8?
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Jonathan
>     _______________________________________
>
>     Jonathan Carter
>     Enterprise Architecture Solutions Ltd
>     Mobile: +44 (0) 7904 198295 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29%207904%20198295>
>     Email: jonathan.carter at e-asolutions.com
>     <mailto:jonathan.carter at e-asolutions.com>
>     _______________________________________
>
>     Proud sponsors of The Essential Project
>     The free open-source Enterprise Architecture Management Platform
>     www.enterprise-architecture.org
>     <http://www.enterprise-architecture.org/>
>     _______________________________________
>
>     Enterprise Architecture Solutions Ltd, Registered in England and
>     Wales: 04097721.
>     Registered Office: 76 High Street, Newport Pagnell, Milton Keynes,
>     MK16 8AQ.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     protege-discussion mailing list
>     protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>     <mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
>     https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
>     Instructions for unsubscribing:
>     http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Ron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20120824/67e6ca66/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list