Andy Seaborne
Andy Seaborne
> Ok, so if the blank node binding works in the WHERE clause, would it be possible to leave blank nodes in the INSERT/DELETE/CONSTRUCT parts as variables and then insert...
Your product controls the execution so run a transform as has already been mentioned. TopQuadrant customers have a contract with TopQuadrant.
Hi @mpagni12 Looks like the optimizer is missing the best filter placement. Could you try the following 2 patterns which add `{ }` to hint to the optimizer: ``` ....
You can unbundle the path (although the query execution does that anyway) ```sparql ##?mnet reconx:reac/reconx:equaSource/reconx:part/reconx:spec/reconx:chem ?chem_1 . ?mnet reconx:reac ?V1 . ?V1 reconx:equaSource ?V2 . ?V2 reconx:part ?V3 . ?V3...
> However I guess that the problem should be easy to reproduce by introducing BIND clause in the innermost graph pattern of nested sub-queries. It's proving to be quite difficult...
> The data are not yet officially released, but I can supply them to you by private email. Sorry, I can't work with private data. I try to treat all...
> Please find the [dump](https://reconx.vital-it.ch/data/reconx.ttl.gz) of the dataset I have used in my above testing. Got it! 66,860,461 triples.
And there are 288 results?
As a temporary workaround: Removing `?mnet` from the inner-most SELECT DISTINCT is faster. The set of unique `?mnxm ?chem_1 ?chem_2` is smaller. The query then finds `?mnet` again. The middle,...
@mpagni12 - have you tried the temporary workaround?