Performance comparison of RDF storage vs traditional database

Question

Has someone experiment RDF storage solution like Sesame? I'm looking for performance review of this kind of solution compared to the traditional database solution.

Answer 1

There are plenny scalabity reports and benchmarks on the web about various triple-stores.

Here is a fine scalability report.

W3C itself maintain a wiki with lots of information about Large Triplestores and Benchmarks.

Follow these 3 links and take a time to read it. It's very informative. :)

Answer 2

I've used sesame extensively in my projects at work. I've found it to be speedy and reliable enough for most situations I find myself in. It has definitely outperformed Jena's storage solutions on a variety of fronts. Sesame 1.x has faster query performance than the 2.x version, but the 2.x version has some nice features such as contexts and sparql support.

If you are looking to use a traditional relational database, you could look at something like D2RQ, or something like Owlgres (if you want inferencing).

Answer 3

One intuition is that if you have a very large number of entities, tuple stores can save yourself the trouble of having your indexes routinely knocked out of memory as you switch between tables, and instead always have the first couple levels of the tuple index in RAM.