Re: Sesame vs. Jena?

From: Leigh Dodds <>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:35:23 +0000

Leo Sauermann wrote:

> We had very bad experience with jena, especially the normal DB-backend.
> in the version I used they had something like this in the triple table:
> s p o
> uri:http://ssss ... literal:en:"asdfasfd"
> so they did encode the difference between RDFNode/Liuteral/Resource
> objects as parseable string.
> sparql2sql is nice, but didn't solve our problems

Can't speak to the merits of the database structure, but we've been
using Jena quite happily. It came out better than either Kowari or
Sesame1. Kowari was unstable with large data volumes and Sesame
exhibited some odd problems with connection timeouts.

Anyway, we've got a large amount of data in a Jena db which is
performing very well at present.


Received on Wed Nov 16 2005 - 15:29:45 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:39:18 EDT