Benchmarking Query Complexity between RDB and OWL

  • Chidchanok Choksuchat
  • Chantana Chantrapornchai
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6485)


This paper describes how to benchmark relational database; RDB and web ontology language; OWL using query complexity concept on two difference speed machines. The domain was based on Hua Hin tourism. The purpose of this experiment was to benchmarking Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems on relational perspective of query complexity. We use our tool to run on different speed machines to measure data complexity factors and the time of each activity. As a result, we conclude that if there is more data size and joined variables, the query complexity of RDB will increase but the ontology will reduce one. The advantage, the approach has been implemented and evaluated on improving the search engine of semantic web and reducing the expression complexity on a real archive.


Query complexity Ontology OWL RDF RDB 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abrahams, B.: Tourism Information Systems Integration and Utilization within the Semantic Web (2006),
  2. 2.
    Zgrzywa, A.: The evaluation of the response time for a tourist agency’s service system. Information and Software Technology 40, 37–44 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Legrand, B.: Semantic Web Methodologies and Tools for Intra-European Sustainable Tourism. JITT (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robert, B., Christina, F., Birgit II, P., Christoph, G., Hannes, W.: Covering the semantic space of tourism: an approach based on modularized ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Context, Information and Ontologies, ACM, Heraklion (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bizer, C., Schultz, A.: The Berlin SPARQL Benchmark. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems - Special Issue on Scalability and Performance of Semantic Web Systems 5, 1–24 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvanese, D., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Data complexity of query answering in description logics. In: Proc. of KR 2006, pp. 260–270 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF.W3C Recommendation (2008),
  8. 8.
    Yuanbo, G., Abir, Q., Zhengxiang, P., Jeff, H.: A Requirements Driven Framework for Benchmarking Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems. IEEE Educational Activities Department, vol. 19, pp. 297–309 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gray, J.: Database and Transaction Processing Performance Handbook. In: The Benchmark Handbook for Database and Transaction Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clark, K.G., Feigenbaum, L., Torres, E.: SPARQL Protocol for RDF.W3C Recommendation (2008),
  11. 11.
    Dell’Erba, M., Fodor, O., Höpken, W., Werthner, H.: Exploiting Semantic Web Technologies for Harmonizing E-Markets. Journal of Information Technology and Tourism 7, 201–219 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmidt, M., Hornung, T., Lausen, G., Pinkel, C.: SP2Bench: A SPARQL Performance Benchmark. In: IEEE 25th International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2009, pp. 222–233 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foder, O., Werther, H.: Harmonise: A Step Toward an Interoperable E-Tourism Marketplace. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 9, 11–39 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Castro, R.G.: Benchmarking Semantic Web technology. Facultad de Informática, Doctoral Thesis. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web: Scientific American. Scientific American (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: LUBM: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 3, 158–182 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moshe, Y.V.: The complexity of relational query languages (Extended Abstract). In: Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. ACM, San Francisco (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chidchanok Choksuchat
    • 1
  • Chantana Chantrapornchai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing, Faculty of ScienceSilpakorn UniversityNakhon PathomThailand

Personalised recommendations