World: r3wp

AFAIK, R2 doesn't have a built in function for it (at least, I never 
ran across it)

hmm, the Stagger function defined this way is O(N ** 2), i.e. not 
advisable for large data

just realizing that now :)

I can hear my HD revving up

It is?  I've only used it for relatively small data, so never had 
a problem..

Besides you don't need to store triples as blocks (they can be flattened) 
in the triple store, then you'll just need to do some math to calculate 
the index of a triple.

The advantage is that you could still use the triple store do some 
slow searchings.

... with find

yeah, i thought of that, but once the inference is there, not sure 
there's a need

with maybe the exception of pattern  matching?

i1 indexes / 3 is always decimal .33333
i2 indexes / 3 is always decimal .6666
i3 indexes / 3 is integer

another advantage of a flat triple store is for simple key/value 
lookups

ie: if you have a html element  <div id="20984"> where the contents 
of the div is  "pick ie 20984"
doesn't get any faster than that

And, this data is tight.. the  250,000 real world triples (manages 
a multi-million dollar electrical equipment rental biz, including 
 1500 contacts, invoicing, and 10,000s of items)  is only 9mb... 
zips to 1.3mb

that's all the data a logic for a medium sized company stored on 
a floppy.

To make it practical for other operations too, the triple store should 
be defined so, that:

1) every triple is stored as a fourtuple, the 
additional field being a unique triple ID...

Why not just use the index of the first part of the triple? 

ie: ["tweety" "isa" "canary" "Sylvester" "isa" "cat"...]


so 1 and 4 are the two triples( i1)  and the next two are i2 and 
i3

i1: [ "Tweety" [1] "Sylvester" [4][
i2: ["isa" [1 4]
i3: ["canary" [ 1] "cat" [4]]

so to determine what Sylvester is.. 

s: i1/("Sylvester")
>> [4]
p: i2/("isa")
>> [1 4]

do an intesect to get "4"
then the value = index ( 4) + 2

Why not just use the index of the first part of the triple?

 - yes, can be done that way, but if you need to remove the triples, 
 you find out, that it may be practical

how does the 4th make it more practical?

how...

 - this way, you will have a triple ID that does not change even if 
 other triples are removed. That is not true for your index.

If you remove a triple, you'd need to reindex everything, no?

actually, that would be costly

I'd tend to null it out instead, and reuse it later

I have thought of a fourth ID for a triple before.. but it represents 
the triple itself. .. rarely needed it though. .there's always a 
way around

Yes, sure, as I said, it is practical mainly in case, you want to 
have simple and fast triple delete operation

yeah.. that could remove some ambiguation

er.. wait, there's no ambiguation.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Source_of_Truth

...but you are right, that there is always a way around

In my old AtomDB i made in Rebol some time ago, I had an index for 
each value.. ie: the number "42" was stored only once, and used the 
index with the inference.. 

values: [ "42" "November" "Baseball"..]


You could have a million birthdays recorded in "November", with a 
single element

billbdaymonth: 2
frankbdaymonth: 2
frankage: 1
the answer to life the universe and everything: 1

It makes more sense for larger values.. nice when you can use a single 
symbol to represent a 1GB binary

Anyway, thanks everyone for the help.

Just BTW, I doubt, that INTERSECT is the fastest way how to intersect 
two hashes, might need some profiling too.

terry, any benchmark results on a dense search with a few million 
records?

also: how long is generating the index on that data

and how much RAM is your triple index consuming?

Ladislav, no prob with a map!

Max, building the indexing functions now

indexing shouldn't take too long.. one foreach pass against the data

probably a faster way, but I'll let the gurus beat their chests over 
it :)

Izkata.. here's another option.. not sure how efficient it is.. 

orig: ["one" "two" "three" "four" "five" "six"]
blk: []

foreach [ a b c ] orig [ d: array/initial [1] reduce [a b c] append 
blk d]

Well, if your doing it that way, "append/only blk reduce [a b c]" 
should be faster - no call to 'array


May as well also have "blk: make block! (length? orig) / 3" - don't 
remember how much of a speedup that was in your previous tests, though

you're*

**Izkata beats his chest, challenging all comers ** 
:)

Max: Indexing 244,327 triples took 4:20 on a rather snappy windows 
box with 6Gb RAM
DB is consuming 114 Mb Ram

(Rebol 2)

1 GB RAM = 2,143,219 triples and their indexes (approx)

Within that data (real world) i have 3,733 cable triples ("dfuflfi33s", 
"isa" "cable") 
("dfuflfi33s" isa a unique 10 byte ID that i stick on everything)


Using the code posted earlier, i can pull a final block of indexes 
for each of those cables in 0.0012 seconds

oops.. decimal error. 

.012 , not .0012

crawling with foreach to get the same result is .09  or about 9 times 
slower

pulling a single unique email address (out of 429) took  0.013

so the time seems somewhat fixed around 0.12 seconds regardless of 
the density

There's a fundamental flaw with this.. let say i find 3000 customers, 
but now i want to pull their email property

foreach customers  customer [ (pseudo) intersect the  customer with 
i1 and email i2)
once is fine.. but 3000 loops is really slow

probably need to store the properties as objects

data: [ "bob" [ email "[bob-:-example-:-com]" lname "Jones"] ...]

then continue to index email, lname etc

OK, take all the noise above and throw it away.. i have the perfect 
solution (how's that for a tease?)

It ties in with my old AtomDB developments, but uses some of the 
methods we went over.. AtomDB used foreach to crawl.. fine for smaller 
datasets but too slow on large data

foreach is alway slower than find/part  so whatever algorithm you 
use, replace it with that in its loop and it will be even better.

It's becoming apparent that these large datasets need to be reduced 
when it comes to FINDing strings



imagine: ["one" "two" "three" "four" "five"... "one hundred million"] 
 

should be

o: ["one" "one hundred million"]
t; ["two" "three"]
f: ["four" "five"]

or even

fo: ["four" "fox" "food"]
fi: ["five" "fifty" "fiver niner"]

pull out the first twh chars and there's your search block