Re: [dotNetRDF-Develop] [Bitbucket] Suggestion about Data.Sql part (direct message)

[Tomasz P. <tom...@gm...>]

Hi Rob, Jerin

I can't recall how the Data.Sql fit in the old code. If possible I would
extract the relevant part of the repository using the convert plugin
(similarily to what we did with the svn->hg migration). This would give you
a new repo/project with all then add dotNetRDF reference from NuGet and
it's almost done. Finally a new project could be created. Maybe it's a good
moment for dotNetRDF.Contrib?

What do you guys think. Would you like me to try such migration?

Regards,
Tom


On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Rob Vesse <rv...@do...> wrote:

> Hi Jerin
>
> The beauty of version control is the code still exists you just have to go
> back in time.
>
> You can find it in the closed obsolete branch in Mercurial, from a clone
> of our repository (https://bitbucket.org/dotnetrdf/dotnetrdf) run the
> following:
>
> hg up –C obsolete
>
> There you can find the code under Libraries\data.sql
>
> Or if you prefer just download the 0.7.0 source which was the last release
> to include the library in an not completely deprecated state (
> http://www.dotnetrdf.org/downloads/dotnetrdf_library_source_070_beta.zip)
>
> The main difference between the Hash and Simple stores was in how node and
> graph IDs are looked up, see the GetNodeID and GetGraphID procedure
> definitions.  In the hash store we used a computed column to hash data to
> an integer which makes looking up existing IDs a function call and then a
> simple index scan.  With the simple store we don't use hashes so have to do
> full/partial value based lookup which can be a lot slower.  The simple
> store was designed for backwards compatibility with earlier SQL Server
> versions that didn't support hash functions, the Simple 2000 store is the
> simple store done without computed columns which didn't support what we
> need in SQL Server 2000.
>
> It would likely need some clean up before it can be thrown up on BitBucket
> to get it to compile with the latest Core, use NuGet for dependencies etc.
> and you are welcome to do that if you wish, I'm afraid I don't have time to
> do it myself.
>
> Rob
>
> From: Jerin Lee <not...@bi...>
> Date: Saturday, July 13, 2013 11:45 PM
> To: Rob Vesse <rv...@do...>
> Subject: Fwd: [Bitbucket] Suggestion about Data.Sql part (direct message)
>
>      You are receiving this email because you're an administrator of the
> dotnetrdf team.
>   [image: taurenshaman]  *Jerin Lee* sent you a message:  Hello, guys. I
> love dotNetRdf very much. 3rd storage solution is a little complicated for
> a individual developer. So I wanna try it with sql. I know you sotpped the
> Data.Sql part. But my suggestion is that you can put the code to a seperate
> project at bitbucket/github, so that you give the choosing right to
> developers/users. Also maybe someone will maintain and forward it. P.S. I
> viewed the resource sql file in dotNetRDF.Data.Sql.dll using JustDecompile.
> Do you have some doc or words to describe the difference between
> AdoHashStore.sql and AdoSimpleStore.sql. Thank you for your time. Best
> wishes!
>      Team email forwarding can be configured from the groups
> administration page <https://bitbucket.org/account/user/dotnetrdf/groups/>   [image:
> Bitbucket] <https://bitbucket.org>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> dotNetRDF-develop mailing list
> dot...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dotnetrdf-develop
>
>