Diferenzas
Isto amosa as diferenzas entre a revisión seleccionada e a versión actual da páxina.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
composit:wsc09 [2014/11/10 13:02] – [Purpose of this web document] pablo.rodriguez.mier | composit:wsc09 [2014/11/20 17:19] (actual) – [Evaluation] pablo.rodriguez.mier | ||
---|---|---|---|
Liña 37: | Liña 37: | ||
===== Evaluation ===== | ===== Evaluation ===== | ||
+ | We tested different configurations to study their individual performance and the overall impact on composition response times. In particular, we used the following configurations: | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | - **SPARQL D/M**: pure //SPARQL// Discovery / Matchmaking where all interactions with the Service and Knowledge Base managers are directly implemented as //SPARQL// queries. This is the typical approach of discovery engines and was the original implementation of iServe. | ||
+ | - **Index. D/ | ||
+ | - **Full Indexed D/M**: both service discovery and concept matchmaking relied on local indexes pre-populated at load time (and updated with writes). In this configuration, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The forward graph generation time + optimizations (**G. time**) and the total number of SPARQL queries generated (**# | ||
+ | " | ||
Liña 46: | Liña 55: | ||
| WSC' | | WSC' | ||
| WSC' | | WSC' | ||
- | | WSC' | + | | WSC' |
- | | WSC' | + | | WSC' |
+ | |||
+ | All datasets were solved with optimal values for composition length and number of services, showing a similar scalability as observed in the WSC'08 datasets (see graph below). | ||
+ | {{: | ||