<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_13_0126224</id>
	<title>Digg Says Yes To NoSQL Cassandra DB, Bye To MySQL</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268491620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>donadony writes <i>"After twitter, now it's Digg who's decided to replace MySQL and most of their infrastructure components and <a href="http://www.unixmen.com/news-today/875-digg-says-yes-to-nosql-and-bye-to-mysql">move away from LAMP to another architecture called NoSQL</a> that is based in <a href="http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/">Cassandra</a>, an open source project that develops a highly scalable second-generation distributed database. Cassandra was <a href="http://www.new.facebook.com/note.php?note\_id=24413138919">open sourced by Facebook in 2008</a> and is licensed under the Apache License. The reason for this move, as explained by Digg, is the increasing difficulty of building a high-performance, write-intensive application on a data set that is growing quickly, with no end in sight. This growth has forced them into horizontal and vertical partitioning strategies that have eliminated most of the value of a relational database, while still incurring all the overhead."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>donadony writes " After twitter , now it 's Digg who 's decided to replace MySQL and most of their infrastructure components and move away from LAMP to another architecture called NoSQL that is based in Cassandra , an open source project that develops a highly scalable second-generation distributed database .
Cassandra was open sourced by Facebook in 2008 and is licensed under the Apache License .
The reason for this move , as explained by Digg , is the increasing difficulty of building a high-performance , write-intensive application on a data set that is growing quickly , with no end in sight .
This growth has forced them into horizontal and vertical partitioning strategies that have eliminated most of the value of a relational database , while still incurring all the overhead .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>donadony writes "After twitter, now it's Digg who's decided to replace MySQL and most of their infrastructure components and move away from LAMP to another architecture called NoSQL that is based in Cassandra, an open source project that develops a highly scalable second-generation distributed database.
Cassandra was open sourced by Facebook in 2008 and is licensed under the Apache License.
The reason for this move, as explained by Digg, is the increasing difficulty of building a high-performance, write-intensive application on a data set that is growing quickly, with no end in sight.
This growth has forced them into horizontal and vertical partitioning strategies that have eliminated most of the value of a relational database, while still incurring all the overhead.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461082</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268411580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worthless?</p><p>That data reflects our culture!</p><p>Sad* but true.</p><p>* Actually, if previous cultures preverved the data of their masses, it wouldent look much diffrent then what you see today. Toilet jokes and sexual humor are aways fashionable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worthless ? That data reflects our culture ! Sad * but true .
* Actually , if previous cultures preverved the data of their masses , it wouldent look much diffrent then what you see today .
Toilet jokes and sexual humor are aways fashionable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worthless?That data reflects our culture!Sad* but true.
* Actually, if previous cultures preverved the data of their masses, it wouldent look much diffrent then what you see today.
Toilet jokes and sexual humor are aways fashionable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461530</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>salemboot</author>
	<datestamp>1268416020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so does ASP.net and C#.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so does ASP.net and C # .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so does ASP.net and C#.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461058</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1268411460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to think that also applied to Slashdot. But no, I've learned a lot both directly and indirectly over the many years (ten years, wow). Even if most of it is crap, the debates and discussions are still quality entries worth keeping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think that also applied to Slashdot .
But no , I 've learned a lot both directly and indirectly over the many years ( ten years , wow ) .
Even if most of it is crap , the debates and discussions are still quality entries worth keeping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think that also applied to Slashdot.
But no, I've learned a lot both directly and indirectly over the many years (ten years, wow).
Even if most of it is crap, the debates and discussions are still quality entries worth keeping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460764</id>
	<title>Database Evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268409360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I imagine with the continual growth of these social networks, high performance DB methodologies will experience tremendous growth, and perhaps even paradigm shifts in the way we logically think and design database architectures. Instead of this flat 2D table mentality, imagine n-dimensional matrices of data, scaling dimensions instead of table and rowcounts.
<br> <br>
I bet if you converted Facebook to this n-dimensional 'table' model, and did a couple inner-joins and unions, you could rip space-time wide-open!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine with the continual growth of these social networks , high performance DB methodologies will experience tremendous growth , and perhaps even paradigm shifts in the way we logically think and design database architectures .
Instead of this flat 2D table mentality , imagine n-dimensional matrices of data , scaling dimensions instead of table and rowcounts .
I bet if you converted Facebook to this n-dimensional 'table ' model , and did a couple inner-joins and unions , you could rip space-time wide-open !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine with the continual growth of these social networks, high performance DB methodologies will experience tremendous growth, and perhaps even paradigm shifts in the way we logically think and design database architectures.
Instead of this flat 2D table mentality, imagine n-dimensional matrices of data, scaling dimensions instead of table and rowcounts.
I bet if you converted Facebook to this n-dimensional 'table' model, and did a couple inner-joins and unions, you could rip space-time wide-open!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136</id>
	<title>Allergic reaction to MySQL</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1268411940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.pgexperts.com/document.html?id=40" title="pgexperts.com">These slides</a> [pgexperts.com] present a balanced and comprehensive overview of the current state of free databases. Whether you're in the NoSQL camp or not, they're worth reading.</p><p>That said, here's my take:</p><p>It's currently fashionable to replace MySQL with some "NoSQL" database or other. This trend is driven by two factors:</p><ul><li>MySQL's community is fragmenting into several forks as Oracle purchases the rights, which created the impression that MySQL's development is entering a riskier, unstable period.</li><li>"NoSQL" is the technology buzzword <i>du jour</i> in the Bay Area. It's difficult to overstate the impact of <i>social</i> forces on technology choice: most technology selections are governed more by what our friends say than by an impartial and disinterested weighing of merits.</li></ul><p>I haven't seen any consideration from potential "NoSQL" adopters of the benefits of using a <i>good</i> relational database like PostgreSQL. There's a world of difference between it and MySQL, and condemning all relational database systems because of bad experiences with MySQL is like condemning all sandwiches because McDonalds once made you sick. In giving up RDBMSes entirely, these developers lose quite a bit of safety, flexibility, an convenience. It's a huge over-reaction.</p><p>This field should not be about following trends, though unfortunately, that's how most people choose which technologies to use: it <i>should</i> be about choosing the best tool for the job. And I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the advantages conferred by a relational system --- enforced integrity, interoperability based on SQL, query flexibility, storage flexibility --- make an RDBMs the best choice for almost any job. If you need sloppier semantics for some cases (for example, "eventual consistency"), you can layer that on <i>top</i> of a robust RDBMs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These slides [ pgexperts.com ] present a balanced and comprehensive overview of the current state of free databases .
Whether you 're in the NoSQL camp or not , they 're worth reading.That said , here 's my take : It 's currently fashionable to replace MySQL with some " NoSQL " database or other .
This trend is driven by two factors : MySQL 's community is fragmenting into several forks as Oracle purchases the rights , which created the impression that MySQL 's development is entering a riskier , unstable period .
" NoSQL " is the technology buzzword du jour in the Bay Area .
It 's difficult to overstate the impact of social forces on technology choice : most technology selections are governed more by what our friends say than by an impartial and disinterested weighing of merits.I have n't seen any consideration from potential " NoSQL " adopters of the benefits of using a good relational database like PostgreSQL .
There 's a world of difference between it and MySQL , and condemning all relational database systems because of bad experiences with MySQL is like condemning all sandwiches because McDonalds once made you sick .
In giving up RDBMSes entirely , these developers lose quite a bit of safety , flexibility , an convenience .
It 's a huge over-reaction.This field should not be about following trends , though unfortunately , that 's how most people choose which technologies to use : it should be about choosing the best tool for the job .
And I believe that in the vast majority of cases , the advantages conferred by a relational system --- enforced integrity , interoperability based on SQL , query flexibility , storage flexibility --- make an RDBMs the best choice for almost any job .
If you need sloppier semantics for some cases ( for example , " eventual consistency " ) , you can layer that on top of a robust RDBMs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These slides [pgexperts.com] present a balanced and comprehensive overview of the current state of free databases.
Whether you're in the NoSQL camp or not, they're worth reading.That said, here's my take:It's currently fashionable to replace MySQL with some "NoSQL" database or other.
This trend is driven by two factors:MySQL's community is fragmenting into several forks as Oracle purchases the rights, which created the impression that MySQL's development is entering a riskier, unstable period.
"NoSQL" is the technology buzzword du jour in the Bay Area.
It's difficult to overstate the impact of social forces on technology choice: most technology selections are governed more by what our friends say than by an impartial and disinterested weighing of merits.I haven't seen any consideration from potential "NoSQL" adopters of the benefits of using a good relational database like PostgreSQL.
There's a world of difference between it and MySQL, and condemning all relational database systems because of bad experiences with MySQL is like condemning all sandwiches because McDonalds once made you sick.
In giving up RDBMSes entirely, these developers lose quite a bit of safety, flexibility, an convenience.
It's a huge over-reaction.This field should not be about following trends, though unfortunately, that's how most people choose which technologies to use: it should be about choosing the best tool for the job.
And I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the advantages conferred by a relational system --- enforced integrity, interoperability based on SQL, query flexibility, storage flexibility --- make an RDBMs the best choice for almost any job.
If you need sloppier semantics for some cases (for example, "eventual consistency"), you can layer that on top of a robust RDBMs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460808</id>
	<title>Dugg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268409600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll be able to suck off Kevin Rose's dick that much faster</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll be able to suck off Kevin Rose 's dick that much faster</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll be able to suck off Kevin Rose's dick that much faster</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461112</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1268411700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what's the advantage of switching?</p><p>I have a policy of if it ain't broke don't fix it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's the advantage of switching ? I have a policy of if it ai n't broke do n't fix it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what's the advantage of switching?I have a policy of if it ain't broke don't fix it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462210</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL not best example of relational technology</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1268510880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to scale without limits and have the money to pay for it buy Oracle.</p><p>If you want to scale with a few limits, but don't have any money get Postgres</p><p>If you want to play around and write some of the most stupid syntax on the face of the earth then play with any of the afore mentioned text databases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to scale without limits and have the money to pay for it buy Oracle.If you want to scale with a few limits , but do n't have any money get PostgresIf you want to play around and write some of the most stupid syntax on the face of the earth then play with any of the afore mentioned text databases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to scale without limits and have the money to pay for it buy Oracle.If you want to scale with a few limits, but don't have any money get PostgresIf you want to play around and write some of the most stupid syntax on the face of the earth then play with any of the afore mentioned text databases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461650</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1268417340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
A bad policy when dealing with your data.
</p><p>
Once it's broke, it is way too late.
</p><p>
You can't un-LOSE  the past 6 hours of transactions or table referential integrity that MySQL trashed, due to an unclean shutdown.
</p><p>
MySQL's great until it comes up to bite you in the arse.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bad policy when dealing with your data .
Once it 's broke , it is way too late .
You ca n't un-LOSE the past 6 hours of transactions or table referential integrity that MySQL trashed , due to an unclean shutdown .
MySQL 's great until it comes up to bite you in the arse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
A bad policy when dealing with your data.
Once it's broke, it is way too late.
You can't un-LOSE  the past 6 hours of transactions or table referential integrity that MySQL trashed, due to an unclean shutdown.
MySQL's great until it comes up to bite you in the arse.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31468702</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1268490600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products. Why sloppy? Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary, people!</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products .
Why sloppy ?
Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary , people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products.
Why sloppy?
Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary, people!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460984</id>
	<title>What about Slashdot?</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1268410920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will Slashdot switch?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will Slashdot switch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will Slashdot switch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461342</id>
	<title>Re:Away from LAMP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268413860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now they just need to switch to FreeBSD so they can use FAPP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now they just need to switch to FreeBSD so they can use FAPP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now they just need to switch to FreeBSD so they can use FAPP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463898</id>
	<title>Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL</title>
	<author>jbellis</author>
	<datestamp>1268495460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Teradata and the other big relational db products (vertical, greenplum, etc) are all \_analytical\_ databases, designed for small amounts of complex queries, where adding new data to the system takes minutes if not hours.  They are completely unsuitable for running a live application against.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Teradata and the other big relational db products ( vertical , greenplum , etc ) are all \ _analytical \ _ databases , designed for small amounts of complex queries , where adding new data to the system takes minutes if not hours .
They are completely unsuitable for running a live application against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teradata and the other big relational db products (vertical, greenplum, etc) are all \_analytical\_ databases, designed for small amounts of complex queries, where adding new data to the system takes minutes if not hours.
They are completely unsuitable for running a live application against.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461178</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg</title>
	<author>OnlyJedi</author>
	<datestamp>1268412360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to various internet sources (so take with a grain of salt):<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark\_Zuckerberg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Mark Zuckerberg's net worth</a> [wikipedia.org]: $2 billion. Made entirely from Facebook.<br><a href="http://venturebeat.com/2009/07/29/how-much-is-twitter-worth-589-million-says-sharespost-report/" title="venturebeat.com" rel="nofollow">Twitter's net worth</a> [venturebeat.com]: $589 million.<br><a href="http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.digg.com" title="websiteoutlook.com" rel="nofollow">Digg's net worth</a> [websiteoutlook.com]: $24.34 million.</p><p>Even if each individual datum is nearly worthless, the combined value is far from it. Do you think any of those companies would still be worth what they are if they're databases were irretrievably wiped?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to various internet sources ( so take with a grain of salt ) : Mark Zuckerberg 's net worth [ wikipedia.org ] : $ 2 billion .
Made entirely from Facebook.Twitter 's net worth [ venturebeat.com ] : $ 589 million.Digg 's net worth [ websiteoutlook.com ] : $ 24.34 million.Even if each individual datum is nearly worthless , the combined value is far from it .
Do you think any of those companies would still be worth what they are if they 're databases were irretrievably wiped ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to various internet sources (so take with a grain of salt):Mark Zuckerberg's net worth [wikipedia.org]: $2 billion.
Made entirely from Facebook.Twitter's net worth [venturebeat.com]: $589 million.Digg's net worth [websiteoutlook.com]: $24.34 million.Even if each individual datum is nearly worthless, the combined value is far from it.
Do you think any of those companies would still be worth what they are if they're databases were irretrievably wiped?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463402</id>
	<title>Where are the Engineering Benchmarks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268489640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, a number of sites have switched to Cassandra, that's an interesting <b> <i>social</i> </b> benchmark.  What about some real <b> <i>engineering</i> </b> benchmarks?  I'd like to consider Cassandra but where is the objective data?</p><p><a href="http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/DataModel" title="apache.org" rel="nofollow"> Cassandra's data model page</a> [apache.org] states that "Cassandra is much, much faster at writes than relational systems".  Great, so how about some comparative data?  There is a <a href="http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/#tab-slides" title="apache.org" rel="nofollow"> slide show </a> [apache.org] on the main Cassandra page with a snippet of data about read latency.  Reads range from 7 ms to 44 ms.   That's pretty anemic in the RDBMS world.  There is a statement that writes are limited by network bandwidth.</p><p>There is also a  presentation from IBM  that shows reads ranging from 25 to 900 ms, but with no write data.  The fact that read latency gets worse (increases) by a factor of 2 or more when you go from a 3 node to 6 node Cassandra cluster would seem to be worrisome on the surface.</p><p>The <a href="http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note\_id=24413138919" title="facebook.com" rel="nofollow"> Facebook Engineering Notes </a> [facebook.com] presentation has almost nothing quantitative (only two sentences have numbers) and nothing is documented about read or write performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , a number of sites have switched to Cassandra , that 's an interesting social benchmark .
What about some real engineering benchmarks ?
I 'd like to consider Cassandra but where is the objective data ?
Cassandra 's data model page [ apache.org ] states that " Cassandra is much , much faster at writes than relational systems " .
Great , so how about some comparative data ?
There is a slide show [ apache.org ] on the main Cassandra page with a snippet of data about read latency .
Reads range from 7 ms to 44 ms. That 's pretty anemic in the RDBMS world .
There is a statement that writes are limited by network bandwidth.There is also a presentation from IBM that shows reads ranging from 25 to 900 ms , but with no write data .
The fact that read latency gets worse ( increases ) by a factor of 2 or more when you go from a 3 node to 6 node Cassandra cluster would seem to be worrisome on the surface.The Facebook Engineering Notes [ facebook.com ] presentation has almost nothing quantitative ( only two sentences have numbers ) and nothing is documented about read or write performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, a number of sites have switched to Cassandra, that's an interesting  social  benchmark.
What about some real  engineering  benchmarks?
I'd like to consider Cassandra but where is the objective data?
Cassandra's data model page [apache.org] states that "Cassandra is much, much faster at writes than relational systems".
Great, so how about some comparative data?
There is a  slide show  [apache.org] on the main Cassandra page with a snippet of data about read latency.
Reads range from 7 ms to 44 ms.   That's pretty anemic in the RDBMS world.
There is a statement that writes are limited by network bandwidth.There is also a  presentation from IBM  that shows reads ranging from 25 to 900 ms, but with no write data.
The fact that read latency gets worse (increases) by a factor of 2 or more when you go from a 3 node to 6 node Cassandra cluster would seem to be worrisome on the surface.The  Facebook Engineering Notes  [facebook.com] presentation has almost nothing quantitative (only two sentences have numbers) and nothing is documented about read or write performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728</id>
	<title>Nothing new ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268409060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products. Why sloppy? Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary, people!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products .
Why sloppy ?
Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary , people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products.
Why sloppy?
Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary, people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462508</id>
	<title>Re:Which DB is better?</title>
	<author>fotoguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1268472240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is a troll. Four-digit slashid. Vague Leading question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a troll .
Four-digit slashid .
Vague Leading question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a troll.
Four-digit slashid.
Vague Leading question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462950</id>
	<title>Re:Database Evolution</title>
	<author>PietjeJantje</author>
	<datestamp>1268480820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, they are all stupid monkeys, these people running the biggest sites, and you are sooo smart, yet can only point to "a book". The rest of my reply is in a book too, and has been given many, many times over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they are all stupid monkeys , these people running the biggest sites , and you are sooo smart , yet can only point to " a book " .
The rest of my reply is in a book too , and has been given many , many times over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they are all stupid monkeys, these people running the biggest sites, and you are sooo smart, yet can only point to "a book".
The rest of my reply is in a book too, and has been given many, many times over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31464440</id>
	<title>Re:"NoSQL"?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1268500980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>SQL is preposterously baroque!</p></div></blockquote><p>Hey, what's wrong with baroque music?</p><p>But I agree that SQL could use an overhaul, rework, or replacements studied. It has poor decomposability, for one: it's hard to break up into referenced parts, resulting in long run-on sentences.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SQL is preposterously baroque ! Hey , what 's wrong with baroque music ? But I agree that SQL could use an overhaul , rework , or replacements studied .
It has poor decomposability , for one : it 's hard to break up into referenced parts , resulting in long run-on sentences .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>SQL is preposterously baroque!Hey, what's wrong with baroque music?But I agree that SQL could use an overhaul, rework, or replacements studied.
It has poor decomposability, for one: it's hard to break up into referenced parts, resulting in long run-on sentences.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461056</id>
	<title>Re:Away from LAMP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268411460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LAMP stands for "Linux Apache MySQL PHP". Moving away from MySQL IS moving away from LAMP. In this case, they seem to be moving to LACP. If they had moved to PostgreSQL it might be termed LAPP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LAMP stands for " Linux Apache MySQL PHP " .
Moving away from MySQL IS moving away from LAMP .
In this case , they seem to be moving to LACP .
If they had moved to PostgreSQL it might be termed LAPP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LAMP stands for "Linux Apache MySQL PHP".
Moving away from MySQL IS moving away from LAMP.
In this case, they seem to be moving to LACP.
If they had moved to PostgreSQL it might be termed LAPP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461256</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1268412960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I just can't resist...</p><p>&gt; databases were irretrievably wiped</p><p>The expression to describe such an fortunate event would be "and nothing of value was [would be] lost".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I just ca n't resist... &gt; databases were irretrievably wipedThe expression to describe such an fortunate event would be " and nothing of value was [ would be ] lost " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I just can't resist...&gt; databases were irretrievably wipedThe expression to describe such an fortunate event would be "and nothing of value was [would be] lost".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461448</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268414820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, are these like Universe products? I'm working in Unidata on a project, and you're right, it f'ing blows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , are these like Universe products ?
I 'm working in Unidata on a project , and you 're right , it f'ing blows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, are these like Universe products?
I'm working in Unidata on a project, and you're right, it f'ing blows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461774</id>
	<title>Re:New acronym in order?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1268418540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[...moving away from LAMP] Cassandra Linux Apache PHP?"</p></div></blockquote><p>try: Cassandra Ruby Apache PHP<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ...moving away from LAMP ] Cassandra Linux Apache PHP ?
" try : Cassandra Ruby Apache PHP    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...moving away from LAMP] Cassandra Linux Apache PHP?
"try: Cassandra Ruby Apache PHP
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461504</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268415720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1999 called. They want their bitching about Java back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1999 called .
They want their bitching about Java back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1999 called.
They want their bitching about Java back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461532</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268416080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally!!!  It scales from slow to glacial with no effort at all!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally ! ! !
It scales from slow to glacial with no effort at all ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally!!!
It scales from slow to glacial with no effort at all!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463434</id>
	<title>Re:Reddit's reliability has been shitty lately.</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1268489940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They switched to Cassandra yesterday or so. It has been faster and more reliable in my experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They switched to Cassandra yesterday or so .
It has been faster and more reliable in my experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They switched to Cassandra yesterday or so.
It has been faster and more reliable in my experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461908</id>
	<title>Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268420280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I haven't seen any consideration from potential "NoSQL" adopters of the benefits of using a <i>good</i> relational database like PostgreSQL.<br>...<br>If you need sloppier semantics for some cases (for example, "eventual consistency"), you can layer that on top of a robust RDBMs.</p></div><p>When you're dealing with TB/PB of data that doesn't require relational capabilities, there's no reason to use a "<i>good</i> relational database like PostgreSQL" when you can dispense altogether with the relational aspect and its performance hit.</p><p>NoSQL may seem like the fad-de-jure, but until recently, nobody was working with such enormous dynamic datasets. When you look at the growth of all these hi-tech companies, they did an incredible amount of in-house hacking to develop the software necessary to glue together their enormous hardware infrastructure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen any consideration from potential " NoSQL " adopters of the benefits of using a good relational database like PostgreSQL....If you need sloppier semantics for some cases ( for example , " eventual consistency " ) , you can layer that on top of a robust RDBMs.When you 're dealing with TB/PB of data that does n't require relational capabilities , there 's no reason to use a " good relational database like PostgreSQL " when you can dispense altogether with the relational aspect and its performance hit.NoSQL may seem like the fad-de-jure , but until recently , nobody was working with such enormous dynamic datasets .
When you look at the growth of all these hi-tech companies , they did an incredible amount of in-house hacking to develop the software necessary to glue together their enormous hardware infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen any consideration from potential "NoSQL" adopters of the benefits of using a good relational database like PostgreSQL....If you need sloppier semantics for some cases (for example, "eventual consistency"), you can layer that on top of a robust RDBMs.When you're dealing with TB/PB of data that doesn't require relational capabilities, there's no reason to use a "good relational database like PostgreSQL" when you can dispense altogether with the relational aspect and its performance hit.NoSQL may seem like the fad-de-jure, but until recently, nobody was working with such enormous dynamic datasets.
When you look at the growth of all these hi-tech companies, they did an incredible amount of in-house hacking to develop the software necessary to glue together their enormous hardware infrastructure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736</id>
	<title>Facebook, Twitter and now Digg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268409180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, Cassandra developers are celebrating the fact that their database is now used to store the largest amount of worthless information in history.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , Cassandra developers are celebrating the fact that their database is now used to store the largest amount of worthless information in history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, Cassandra developers are celebrating the fact that their database is now used to store the largest amount of worthless information in history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461308</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1268413620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't your grandfather's JVM.</p><p>These days, Java is quite fast and efficient, and there are even a lot of different alternative VMs you can try. Sure, startup time isn't the best, and Swing is still a lumbering, over-engineered, ill-fitting albatross: but these problems don't matter for server applications.</p><p>IMHO, the best part is that you can write programs that run on the JVM in a <a href="http://clojure.org/" title="clojure.org">dialect of Lisp</a> [clojure.org] and interact seamlessly with other code on the JVM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't your grandfather 's JVM.These days , Java is quite fast and efficient , and there are even a lot of different alternative VMs you can try .
Sure , startup time is n't the best , and Swing is still a lumbering , over-engineered , ill-fitting albatross : but these problems do n't matter for server applications.IMHO , the best part is that you can write programs that run on the JVM in a dialect of Lisp [ clojure.org ] and interact seamlessly with other code on the JVM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't your grandfather's JVM.These days, Java is quite fast and efficient, and there are even a lot of different alternative VMs you can try.
Sure, startup time isn't the best, and Swing is still a lumbering, over-engineered, ill-fitting albatross: but these problems don't matter for server applications.IMHO, the best part is that you can write programs that run on the JVM in a dialect of Lisp [clojure.org] and interact seamlessly with other code on the JVM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463868</id>
	<title>Re:The Monty crowd will blame this on Oracle</title>
	<author>Exitar</author>
	<datestamp>1268495160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DB fanboism?<br>Now I've really seen everything!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DB fanboism ? Now I 've really seen everything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DB fanboism?Now I've really seen everything!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463036</id>
	<title>Why the angry SQLers?</title>
	<author>ishmalius</author>
	<datestamp>1268482920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There seems to be this angry pushback from a core of dedicated SQL programmers, acting as if someone had insulted their tin god and wanted to invalidate their lives' work.  Not at all.  All that has been developing is the realization that RDBMS's are not the best fit for all applications, and that other storage schemes might have a better impedance match with the needs of a particular design.  RDBMS's are still robust and reliable and useful for (maybe most) applications.  Only some apps' data does not fit nicely into rows and columns.  And you should design your code around the data, not try to morph the data to your software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be this angry pushback from a core of dedicated SQL programmers , acting as if someone had insulted their tin god and wanted to invalidate their lives ' work .
Not at all .
All that has been developing is the realization that RDBMS 's are not the best fit for all applications , and that other storage schemes might have a better impedance match with the needs of a particular design .
RDBMS 's are still robust and reliable and useful for ( maybe most ) applications .
Only some apps ' data does not fit nicely into rows and columns .
And you should design your code around the data , not try to morph the data to your software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be this angry pushback from a core of dedicated SQL programmers, acting as if someone had insulted their tin god and wanted to invalidate their lives' work.
Not at all.
All that has been developing is the realization that RDBMS's are not the best fit for all applications, and that other storage schemes might have a better impedance match with the needs of a particular design.
RDBMS's are still robust and reliable and useful for (maybe most) applications.
Only some apps' data does not fit nicely into rows and columns.
And you should design your code around the data, not try to morph the data to your software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461574</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new ...</title>
	<author>hibiki\_r</author>
	<datestamp>1268416500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, it cannot be any sloppier than actual UniVerse: It performs extremely poorly on large files, especially when record sizes vary wildly. I've seen in-memory files in which any insert or update operation took 5+ seconds! In my experience, even Postgres in far weaker hardware just spanks UniVerse even on the simple queries where it should have an advantage. If you ever need to read two or three files, either by hand or through I dictionary entries, UniVerse is orders of magnitude slower. When you add the low quality of the system monitoring and debugging tools that are available for it, it turns into one big stinker.</p><p>If Cassandra is any slower, it'd have to lock the system up while idle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , it can not be any sloppier than actual UniVerse : It performs extremely poorly on large files , especially when record sizes vary wildly .
I 've seen in-memory files in which any insert or update operation took 5 + seconds !
In my experience , even Postgres in far weaker hardware just spanks UniVerse even on the simple queries where it should have an advantage .
If you ever need to read two or three files , either by hand or through I dictionary entries , UniVerse is orders of magnitude slower .
When you add the low quality of the system monitoring and debugging tools that are available for it , it turns into one big stinker.If Cassandra is any slower , it 'd have to lock the system up while idle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, it cannot be any sloppier than actual UniVerse: It performs extremely poorly on large files, especially when record sizes vary wildly.
I've seen in-memory files in which any insert or update operation took 5+ seconds!
In my experience, even Postgres in far weaker hardware just spanks UniVerse even on the simple queries where it should have an advantage.
If you ever need to read two or three files, either by hand or through I dictionary entries, UniVerse is orders of magnitude slower.
When you add the low quality of the system monitoring and debugging tools that are available for it, it turns into one big stinker.If Cassandra is any slower, it'd have to lock the system up while idle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462450</id>
	<title>New standard stack for open source development</title>
	<author>tommis</author>
	<datestamp>1268471400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moving from LAMP to CLAP sounds like a new STD stack for open source develeopment</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moving from LAMP to CLAP sounds like a new STD stack for open source develeopment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moving from LAMP to CLAP sounds like a new STD stack for open source develeopment</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462318</id>
	<title>Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL</title>
	<author>scribblej</author>
	<datestamp>1268512380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with you, I'm a developer of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... medium-sized systems using Postgresql, and this article greatly piqued my interest, considering the single biggest problem I've had with Postgres is it's lack of any good replication or redundancy methods.  Right now I tend to use WAL replication to a "warm-standby" server, but this is hardly ideal in any sense.</p><p>Don't misunderstand me, I dearly love Postgres.  It's just the replication where it really falls flat.  Yes, I am aware of all the projects like Slony and pgcluster.  I like the idea of pgcluster, but last time I was able to test it, it would fail in funny ways and didn't seem ready for production.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with you , I 'm a developer of ... medium-sized systems using Postgresql , and this article greatly piqued my interest , considering the single biggest problem I 've had with Postgres is it 's lack of any good replication or redundancy methods .
Right now I tend to use WAL replication to a " warm-standby " server , but this is hardly ideal in any sense.Do n't misunderstand me , I dearly love Postgres .
It 's just the replication where it really falls flat .
Yes , I am aware of all the projects like Slony and pgcluster .
I like the idea of pgcluster , but last time I was able to test it , it would fail in funny ways and did n't seem ready for production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with you, I'm a developer of ... medium-sized systems using Postgresql, and this article greatly piqued my interest, considering the single biggest problem I've had with Postgres is it's lack of any good replication or redundancy methods.
Right now I tend to use WAL replication to a "warm-standby" server, but this is hardly ideal in any sense.Don't misunderstand me, I dearly love Postgres.
It's just the replication where it really falls flat.
Yes, I am aware of all the projects like Slony and pgcluster.
I like the idea of pgcluster, but last time I was able to test it, it would fail in funny ways and didn't seem ready for production.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460784</id>
	<title>New acronym in order?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268409480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the Digg blog - <a href="http://about.digg.com/node/564" title="digg.com">http://about.digg.com/node/564</a> [digg.com]</p><p>"And if that doesn't sound like a big enough challenge, we're replacing most of our infrastructure components and moving away from LAMP."</p><p>Cassandra Linux Apache PHP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Digg blog - http : //about.digg.com/node/564 [ digg.com ] " And if that does n't sound like a big enough challenge , we 're replacing most of our infrastructure components and moving away from LAMP .
" Cassandra Linux Apache PHP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Digg blog - http://about.digg.com/node/564 [digg.com]"And if that doesn't sound like a big enough challenge, we're replacing most of our infrastructure components and moving away from LAMP.
"Cassandra Linux Apache PHP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462696</id>
	<title>Re:"NoSQL"?</title>
	<author>shic</author>
	<datestamp>1268476080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, there's nothing wrong with SQL as a language</p></div><p>I beg to differ - SQL is preposterously baroque!</p><p>That said, if you're problem is of a particular kind, it is a perfectly reasonable, practical, solution to many problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Second , there 's nothing wrong with SQL as a languageI beg to differ - SQL is preposterously baroque ! That said , if you 're problem is of a particular kind , it is a perfectly reasonable , practical , solution to many problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Second, there's nothing wrong with SQL as a languageI beg to differ - SQL is preposterously baroque!That said, if you're problem is of a particular kind, it is a perfectly reasonable, practical, solution to many problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461242</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>M. Baranczak</author>
	<datestamp>1268412840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're trying to run a site on a $15/month hosting account, then no, this is probably not for you. But if you're at the stage where MySQL isn't able to handle all the data you're throwing at it, then chances are you won't care about the extra few MB of memory that the Java runtime requires.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're trying to run a site on a $ 15/month hosting account , then no , this is probably not for you .
But if you 're at the stage where MySQL is n't able to handle all the data you 're throwing at it , then chances are you wo n't care about the extra few MB of memory that the Java runtime requires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're trying to run a site on a $15/month hosting account, then no, this is probably not for you.
But if you're at the stage where MySQL isn't able to handle all the data you're throwing at it, then chances are you won't care about the extra few MB of memory that the Java runtime requires.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462054</id>
	<title>Re:New acronym in order?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268421840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cassandra Redhat Apache PHP = CRAP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cassandra Redhat Apache PHP = CRAP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cassandra Redhat Apache PHP = CRAP!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461446</id>
	<title>"NoSQL"?</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1268414820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who frowns at this moniker?</p><p>First, it creates a false premise where people need to pick "SQL" versus "no SQL", while many real-world systems intelligently combine relational and non-relational data storage for their needs. There is no conflict.</p><p>Second, there's nothing wrong with SQL as a language in particular, and in fact many of the "noSQL" engines are starting to support and extending basic SQL queries, instead of reinventing their own query language for the same purpose.</p><p>I suppose "lessRDBMSabuse" was less catchy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who frowns at this moniker ? First , it creates a false premise where people need to pick " SQL " versus " no SQL " , while many real-world systems intelligently combine relational and non-relational data storage for their needs .
There is no conflict.Second , there 's nothing wrong with SQL as a language in particular , and in fact many of the " noSQL " engines are starting to support and extending basic SQL queries , instead of reinventing their own query language for the same purpose.I suppose " lessRDBMSabuse " was less catchy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who frowns at this moniker?First, it creates a false premise where people need to pick "SQL" versus "no SQL", while many real-world systems intelligently combine relational and non-relational data storage for their needs.
There is no conflict.Second, there's nothing wrong with SQL as a language in particular, and in fact many of the "noSQL" engines are starting to support and extending basic SQL queries, instead of reinventing their own query language for the same purpose.I suppose "lessRDBMSabuse" was less catchy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462230</id>
	<title>Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL</title>
	<author>kmike</author>
	<datestamp>1268511000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As several MySQL experts already noted, Digg isn't even using the indexes that provide maximum performance in the query that they present as problematic for MySQL:<br><a href="http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2010/03/index-only.html" title="blogspot.com">http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2010/03/index-only.html</a> [blogspot.com]<br><a href="http://www.yafla.com/dforbes/Getting\_Real\_about\_NoSQL\_and\_the\_SQL\_Performance\_Lie/" title="yafla.com">http://www.yafla.com/dforbes/Getting\_Real\_about\_NoSQL\_and\_the\_SQL\_Performance\_Lie/</a> [yafla.com]</p><p>So you are right about the NoSQL fashion trend. Looks like for some companies it's easier to throw a pile of cheap commodity hardware driven by some NoSQL BigTable-wannabie at the problem instead of carefully optimizing queries and indexes for the best performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As several MySQL experts already noted , Digg is n't even using the indexes that provide maximum performance in the query that they present as problematic for MySQL : http : //mysqlha.blogspot.com/2010/03/index-only.html [ blogspot.com ] http : //www.yafla.com/dforbes/Getting \ _Real \ _about \ _NoSQL \ _and \ _the \ _SQL \ _Performance \ _Lie/ [ yafla.com ] So you are right about the NoSQL fashion trend .
Looks like for some companies it 's easier to throw a pile of cheap commodity hardware driven by some NoSQL BigTable-wannabie at the problem instead of carefully optimizing queries and indexes for the best performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As several MySQL experts already noted, Digg isn't even using the indexes that provide maximum performance in the query that they present as problematic for MySQL:http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2010/03/index-only.html [blogspot.com]http://www.yafla.com/dforbes/Getting\_Real\_about\_NoSQL\_and\_the\_SQL\_Performance\_Lie/ [yafla.com]So you are right about the NoSQL fashion trend.
Looks like for some companies it's easier to throw a pile of cheap commodity hardware driven by some NoSQL BigTable-wannabie at the problem instead of carefully optimizing queries and indexes for the best performance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461826</id>
	<title>Re:Which DB is better?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268419200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you need a chart to help you pick the best database for your site God help you. Either hire a DBA or just stick with LAMP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need a chart to help you pick the best database for your site God help you .
Either hire a DBA or just stick with LAMP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need a chart to help you pick the best database for your site God help you.
Either hire a DBA or just stick with LAMP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461502</id>
	<title>Re:New acronym in order?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268415720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Cassandra Linux IIS TCL</p><p>Dont ask how that works out, because every month or so it makes me want to kill someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Cassandra Linux IIS TCLDont ask how that works out , because every month or so it makes me want to kill someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Cassandra Linux IIS TCLDont ask how that works out, because every month or so it makes me want to kill someone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460748</id>
	<title>Reddit</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1268409240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reddit also recently <a href="http://blog.reddit.com/2010/03/she-who-entangles-men.html" title="reddit.com">switched</a> [reddit.com] to Cassandra.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reddit also recently switched [ reddit.com ] to Cassandra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reddit also recently switched [reddit.com] to Cassandra.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461110</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1268411700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fits, before that mysql was the best way to store data no one cared about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fits , before that mysql was the best way to store data no one cared about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fits, before that mysql was the best way to store data no one cared about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463268</id>
	<title>Restrictive licensing (GPL) is one of the reasons.</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1268487660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Linux kernel, Firefox, and graphical toolkits (and things built on top of them) are running on their momentum (i.e. the "viral" effect), but have you noticed how newly successful projects overwhelmingly tend to have permissive licenses like Apache (as is the case with Cassandra), BSD, MIT, PHP, Python, and so on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Linux kernel , Firefox , and graphical toolkits ( and things built on top of them ) are running on their momentum ( i.e .
the " viral " effect ) , but have you noticed how newly successful projects overwhelmingly tend to have permissive licenses like Apache ( as is the case with Cassandra ) , BSD , MIT , PHP , Python , and so on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Linux kernel, Firefox, and graphical toolkits (and things built on top of them) are running on their momentum (i.e.
the "viral" effect), but have you noticed how newly successful projects overwhelmingly tend to have permissive licenses like Apache (as is the case with Cassandra), BSD, MIT, PHP, Python, and so on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268410320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I became interested in this for use with my projects (probably won't ever outgrow MySQL's capabilities, but it looked like maybe it'd make redundancy easier).
<br> <br>
I immediately became disinterested when I read the following line:<br>
"Also, unless you've downloaded a binary distribution, you'll need to compile the software by invoking <b>ant</b> from the top-level directory."
<br> <br>
Do I really need Java to run this?  Does that sound ridiculous to anyone else? Not just because of how much slower it is, but think of how much overhead is required.  On a lighter server configuration, this could easily double memory usage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I became interested in this for use with my projects ( probably wo n't ever outgrow MySQL 's capabilities , but it looked like maybe it 'd make redundancy easier ) .
I immediately became disinterested when I read the following line : " Also , unless you 've downloaded a binary distribution , you 'll need to compile the software by invoking ant from the top-level directory .
" Do I really need Java to run this ?
Does that sound ridiculous to anyone else ?
Not just because of how much slower it is , but think of how much overhead is required .
On a lighter server configuration , this could easily double memory usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I became interested in this for use with my projects (probably won't ever outgrow MySQL's capabilities, but it looked like maybe it'd make redundancy easier).
I immediately became disinterested when I read the following line:
"Also, unless you've downloaded a binary distribution, you'll need to compile the software by invoking ant from the top-level directory.
"
 
Do I really need Java to run this?
Does that sound ridiculous to anyone else?
Not just because of how much slower it is, but think of how much overhead is required.
On a lighter server configuration, this could easily double memory usage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461596</id>
	<title>Re:New acronym in order?</title>
	<author>solferino</author>
	<datestamp>1268416680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of the original name for the Daihatsu Applause, before they did their complete model name reaction testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the original name for the Daihatsu Applause , before they did their complete model name reaction testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the original name for the Daihatsu Applause, before they did their complete model name reaction testing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463884</id>
	<title>There is no "separate file access for each column"</title>
	<author>jbellis</author>
	<datestamp>1268495280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No idea where you got that particular piece of misinformation.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No idea where you got that particular piece of misinformation .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No idea where you got that particular piece of misinformation.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460846</id>
	<title>The Monty crowd will blame this on Oracle</title>
	<author>heathm</author>
	<datestamp>1268409840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sad thing is that Monty's MySQL fan boys will blame this on Oracle when in reality the move to Cassandra (or other NoSQL databases) is what a lot of web sites should be doing regardless of who holds the MySQL reins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sad thing is that Monty 's MySQL fan boys will blame this on Oracle when in reality the move to Cassandra ( or other NoSQL databases ) is what a lot of web sites should be doing regardless of who holds the MySQL reins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sad thing is that Monty's MySQL fan boys will blame this on Oracle when in reality the move to Cassandra (or other NoSQL databases) is what a lot of web sites should be doing regardless of who holds the MySQL reins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31469804</id>
	<title>Re:"NoSQL"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268501940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then XQuery must be rococo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then XQuery must be rococo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then XQuery must be rococo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460782</id>
	<title>Good for them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268409480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL is the leading bottleneck and point of failure when your project starts to grow. MySQL is a monoculture. On the lowest end of the spectrum (after SQL Lite) it rules the landscape. Virtually 95\% of all hosting companies offer MySQL as the only option for customers. Would be nice if some alternatives emerged and we had some competition in that space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL is the leading bottleneck and point of failure when your project starts to grow .
MySQL is a monoculture .
On the lowest end of the spectrum ( after SQL Lite ) it rules the landscape .
Virtually 95 \ % of all hosting companies offer MySQL as the only option for customers .
Would be nice if some alternatives emerged and we had some competition in that space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL is the leading bottleneck and point of failure when your project starts to grow.
MySQL is a monoculture.
On the lowest end of the spectrum (after SQL Lite) it rules the landscape.
Virtually 95\% of all hosting companies offer MySQL as the only option for customers.
Would be nice if some alternatives emerged and we had some competition in that space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31478820</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1268684400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slower as what, C++ definitely in most szenarios, PHP and other scripting languages, it runs circles around them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slower as what , C + + definitely in most szenarios , PHP and other scripting languages , it runs circles around them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slower as what, C++ definitely in most szenarios, PHP and other scripting languages, it runs circles around them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31469266</id>
	<title>Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1268496060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>make an RDBMs the best choice for almost any job</p></div><p>Some NoSQL databases are much better when it comes to the Object/Relational impedance mismatch.  This is why I'm a huge fan of MongoDB.  Even though it's not intended to be embedded, I find that it's much easier to work with then SQLite.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>make an RDBMs the best choice for almost any jobSome NoSQL databases are much better when it comes to the Object/Relational impedance mismatch .
This is why I 'm a huge fan of MongoDB .
Even though it 's not intended to be embedded , I find that it 's much easier to work with then SQLite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>make an RDBMs the best choice for almost any jobSome NoSQL databases are much better when it comes to the Object/Relational impedance mismatch.
This is why I'm a huge fan of MongoDB.
Even though it's not intended to be embedded, I find that it's much easier to work with then SQLite.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462218</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1268510940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.digg.com" title="websiteoutlook.com">Digg's net worth</a> [websiteoutlook.com]: $24.34 million.</p></div><p>Makes me wonder why its owners put so much effort into making it suck. Their discussion system used to be half decent. Then they changed it and it is totally useless again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Digg 's net worth [ websiteoutlook.com ] : $ 24.34 million.Makes me wonder why its owners put so much effort into making it suck .
Their discussion system used to be half decent .
Then they changed it and it is totally useless again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Digg's net worth [websiteoutlook.com]: $24.34 million.Makes me wonder why its owners put so much effort into making it suck.
Their discussion system used to be half decent.
Then they changed it and it is totally useless again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463980</id>
	<title>Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL</title>
	<author>TedZ</author>
	<datestamp>1268496420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you are right about the NoSQL fashion trend. Looks like for some companies it's easier to throw a pile of cheap commodity hardware driven by some NoSQL BigTable-wannabie at the problem instead of carefully optimizing queries and indexes for the best performance.</p></div><p>Companies do whatever is cheapest.  Today, it's cheaper to scale with hardware than with optimizing queries and indices.  This is just what Richard Gabriel's described in his classic essays, see <a href="http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html" title="dreamsongs.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html</a> [dreamsongs.com]</p><p>Do you know the cost (salary or consulting) of a MySQL expert?  How about the cost of optimizing for that one database, tying yourself down to it with non-standard SQL?  How about MySQL's historical baggage, piles upon piles of backwards compatibility?</p><p>It's not as simple as it seems, the business of data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are right about the NoSQL fashion trend .
Looks like for some companies it 's easier to throw a pile of cheap commodity hardware driven by some NoSQL BigTable-wannabie at the problem instead of carefully optimizing queries and indexes for the best performance.Companies do whatever is cheapest .
Today , it 's cheaper to scale with hardware than with optimizing queries and indices .
This is just what Richard Gabriel 's described in his classic essays , see http : //www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html [ dreamsongs.com ] Do you know the cost ( salary or consulting ) of a MySQL expert ?
How about the cost of optimizing for that one database , tying yourself down to it with non-standard SQL ?
How about MySQL 's historical baggage , piles upon piles of backwards compatibility ? It 's not as simple as it seems , the business of data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are right about the NoSQL fashion trend.
Looks like for some companies it's easier to throw a pile of cheap commodity hardware driven by some NoSQL BigTable-wannabie at the problem instead of carefully optimizing queries and indexes for the best performance.Companies do whatever is cheapest.
Today, it's cheaper to scale with hardware than with optimizing queries and indices.
This is just what Richard Gabriel's described in his classic essays, see http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html [dreamsongs.com]Do you know the cost (salary or consulting) of a MySQL expert?
How about the cost of optimizing for that one database, tying yourself down to it with non-standard SQL?
How about MySQL's historical baggage, piles upon piles of backwards compatibility?It's not as simple as it seems, the business of data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31470472</id>
	<title>Re:Which DB is better?</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1268598000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't jave a chart but I can tell you that we switched to PostgreSQL for performance reasons and haven't regretted it. IMHO Postgresql is significantly faster for transaction environments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't jave a chart but I can tell you that we switched to PostgreSQL for performance reasons and have n't regretted it .
IMHO Postgresql is significantly faster for transaction environments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't jave a chart but I can tell you that we switched to PostgreSQL for performance reasons and haven't regretted it.
IMHO Postgresql is significantly faster for transaction environments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463120</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new ...</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1268484960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products. Why sloppy? Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary, people!</p></div><p>They go this route and not PostrgreSQL 8.5? Seriously?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products .
Why sloppy ?
Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary , people ! They go this route and not PostrgreSQL 8.5 ?
Seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products.
Why sloppy?
Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary, people!They go this route and not PostrgreSQL 8.5?
Seriously?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462400</id>
	<title>Re:The Monty crowd will blame this on Oracle</title>
	<author>Taco Cowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268513880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in reality the move to Cassandra (or other NoSQL databases) is what a lot of web sites should be doing regardless of who holds the MySQL reins</p></div><p>Please pardon me for being dense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Can someone please tell me why web sites should move to Non-SQL databases from SQL?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... in reality the move to Cassandra ( or other NoSQL databases ) is what a lot of web sites should be doing regardless of who holds the MySQL reinsPlease pardon me for being dense ...Can someone please tell me why web sites should move to Non-SQL databases from SQL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... in reality the move to Cassandra (or other NoSQL databases) is what a lot of web sites should be doing regardless of who holds the MySQL reinsPlease pardon me for being dense ...Can someone please tell me why web sites should move to Non-SQL databases from SQL?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462526</id>
	<title>Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL</title>
	<author>Splab</author>
	<datestamp>1268472660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the fact that you mention PgSQL as a good database - it absolutely is, but there is no way in hell it would ever be able to handle the load of Facebook et. al. PgSQL has no clustering option and thus is unable to scale out, only up - you could move some partitioning into the software, but that would lose the point of having a database.</p><p>Also, while MySQL is in trouble, the reason for moving away to a database like Casndra for these companies isn't as much busswords as it is just a good business decision. When you don't care about your dataset, that is, you can accept "eventually correct", using casndra over *SQL makes perfect sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the fact that you mention PgSQL as a good database - it absolutely is , but there is no way in hell it would ever be able to handle the load of Facebook et .
al. PgSQL has no clustering option and thus is unable to scale out , only up - you could move some partitioning into the software , but that would lose the point of having a database.Also , while MySQL is in trouble , the reason for moving away to a database like Casndra for these companies is n't as much busswords as it is just a good business decision .
When you do n't care about your dataset , that is , you can accept " eventually correct " , using casndra over * SQL makes perfect sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the fact that you mention PgSQL as a good database - it absolutely is, but there is no way in hell it would ever be able to handle the load of Facebook et.
al. PgSQL has no clustering option and thus is unable to scale out, only up - you could move some partitioning into the software, but that would lose the point of having a database.Also, while MySQL is in trouble, the reason for moving away to a database like Casndra for these companies isn't as much busswords as it is just a good business decision.
When you don't care about your dataset, that is, you can accept "eventually correct", using casndra over *SQL makes perfect sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462806</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268478600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you get to the point where mysql won't be able to manage all that data then Java overhead would be probably way more than few megabytes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you get to the point where mysql wo n't be able to manage all that data then Java overhead would be probably way more than few megabytes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you get to the point where mysql won't be able to manage all that data then Java overhead would be probably way more than few megabytes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31585598</id>
	<title>Web 2.0 world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269366540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Name one Web 2.0 application that is able to properly manage multiple MySql? I am aware of only one (http://novaquantum.com) but the point is that MySql is not gaining any ground on 2.0 frontend!<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Name one Web 2.0 application that is able to properly manage multiple MySql ?
I am aware of only one ( http : //novaquantum.com ) but the point is that MySql is not gaining any ground on 2.0 frontend !
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name one Web 2.0 application that is able to properly manage multiple MySql?
I am aware of only one (http://novaquantum.com) but the point is that MySql is not gaining any ground on 2.0 frontend!
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463132</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new ...</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1268485200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My apologies for not getting the memo that PostgreSQL 8.5 is now 9.0.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My apologies for not getting the memo that PostgreSQL 8.5 is now 9.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My apologies for not getting the memo that PostgreSQL 8.5 is now 9.0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461198</id>
	<title>Reddit's reliability has been shitty lately.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268412480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a related note, Reddit's performance and reliability has dropped off significantly since switching to Amazon's "Cloud", and dropped off even further after this switch to Cassandra.</p><p>The constant 503 errors, plus horrendous load times when it does manage to work, have driven me and many others away from Reddit. That's why I'm posting here on Slashdot.</p><p>Cloud hosting is a stupid idea for anything beyond a blog getting 10 hits per date. All the talk about scalability is pure bunk. I mean, even with the extensive knowledge and infrastructure of Amazon, the Reddit site is slow (and it wasn't like that before they switched).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a related note , Reddit 's performance and reliability has dropped off significantly since switching to Amazon 's " Cloud " , and dropped off even further after this switch to Cassandra.The constant 503 errors , plus horrendous load times when it does manage to work , have driven me and many others away from Reddit .
That 's why I 'm posting here on Slashdot.Cloud hosting is a stupid idea for anything beyond a blog getting 10 hits per date .
All the talk about scalability is pure bunk .
I mean , even with the extensive knowledge and infrastructure of Amazon , the Reddit site is slow ( and it was n't like that before they switched ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a related note, Reddit's performance and reliability has dropped off significantly since switching to Amazon's "Cloud", and dropped off even further after this switch to Cassandra.The constant 503 errors, plus horrendous load times when it does manage to work, have driven me and many others away from Reddit.
That's why I'm posting here on Slashdot.Cloud hosting is a stupid idea for anything beyond a blog getting 10 hits per date.
All the talk about scalability is pure bunk.
I mean, even with the extensive knowledge and infrastructure of Amazon, the Reddit site is slow (and it wasn't like that before they switched).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461406</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1268414400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reddit also switched from memcachedb to Cassandra for their kvstore.  From research to launch took 10 days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reddit also switched from memcachedb to Cassandra for their kvstore .
From research to launch took 10 days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reddit also switched from memcachedb to Cassandra for their kvstore.
From research to launch took 10 days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461288</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268413440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/etc/init.d/cassandra stop<br>free -m<br>-/+ buffers/cache:        213       1259<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/init.d/cassandra start<br>free -m<br>-/+ buffers/cache:        308       1164</p><p>Note that memory usage increases by 100MB, and that's immediately after installing it.<br>Sites with such large volume could easily benefit from a low memory usage configuration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/etc/init.d/cassandra stopfree -m-/ + buffers/cache : 213 1259 /etc/init.d/cassandra startfree -m-/ + buffers/cache : 308 1164Note that memory usage increases by 100MB , and that 's immediately after installing it.Sites with such large volume could easily benefit from a low memory usage configuration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/etc/init.d/cassandra stopfree -m-/+ buffers/cache:        213       1259 /etc/init.d/cassandra startfree -m-/+ buffers/cache:        308       1164Note that memory usage increases by 100MB, and that's immediately after installing it.Sites with such large volume could easily benefit from a low memory usage configuration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462778</id>
	<title>Re:"NoSQL"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268478000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of the systems that support SQL as a wrapper do so at a much lower scalability and performance rating.</p><p>The reason its NoSQL vs SQL is that SQL comes with a mindset of "complicated queries." When you say SQL people think of transactions, joins, wheres and such. NoSQL is by design far simpler than that. Its pushing the complexity into the application layer and as such it must be thought of as something that is specifically not SQL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the systems that support SQL as a wrapper do so at a much lower scalability and performance rating.The reason its NoSQL vs SQL is that SQL comes with a mindset of " complicated queries .
" When you say SQL people think of transactions , joins , wheres and such .
NoSQL is by design far simpler than that .
Its pushing the complexity into the application layer and as such it must be thought of as something that is specifically not SQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the systems that support SQL as a wrapper do so at a much lower scalability and performance rating.The reason its NoSQL vs SQL is that SQL comes with a mindset of "complicated queries.
" When you say SQL people think of transactions, joins, wheres and such.
NoSQL is by design far simpler than that.
Its pushing the complexity into the application layer and as such it must be thought of as something that is specifically not SQL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462582</id>
	<title>Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268473680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you're dealing with TB/PB range, you call Teradata.  At last check they handle 4 of the 5 largest databases in the world, including eBay/Paypal's 13PB's monster and Walmart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you 're dealing with TB/PB range , you call Teradata .
At last check they handle 4 of the 5 largest databases in the world , including eBay/Paypal 's 13PB 's monster and Walmart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you're dealing with TB/PB range, you call Teradata.
At last check they handle 4 of the 5 largest databases in the world, including eBay/Paypal's 13PB's monster and Walmart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461140</id>
	<title>MySQL not best example of relational technology</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1268412000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL has never been a good example of a relational database, the underlying implementation is limited. Its MySQL that is the problem here, not relational databases.</p><p>I suspect here that it is not the relational model at fault here, but the lack of creativity and competence in implementing a relational database technology. MySQL perhaps has never been a particularly scalable platform, it has a number of severe limitation and does not seem to be designed with a lot of thought for a distributed environment. Its developers seem to have developed it for small scale webpages, and have been notorius on leaving out many advanced features, and thus have limited its effectiveness to small, low powered pages.</p><p>Its all in implementation, its not the relational database model that needs fixing, it is the underlying implementations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL has never been a good example of a relational database , the underlying implementation is limited .
Its MySQL that is the problem here , not relational databases.I suspect here that it is not the relational model at fault here , but the lack of creativity and competence in implementing a relational database technology .
MySQL perhaps has never been a particularly scalable platform , it has a number of severe limitation and does not seem to be designed with a lot of thought for a distributed environment .
Its developers seem to have developed it for small scale webpages , and have been notorius on leaving out many advanced features , and thus have limited its effectiveness to small , low powered pages.Its all in implementation , its not the relational database model that needs fixing , it is the underlying implementations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL has never been a good example of a relational database, the underlying implementation is limited.
Its MySQL that is the problem here, not relational databases.I suspect here that it is not the relational model at fault here, but the lack of creativity and competence in implementing a relational database technology.
MySQL perhaps has never been a particularly scalable platform, it has a number of severe limitation and does not seem to be designed with a lot of thought for a distributed environment.
Its developers seem to have developed it for small scale webpages, and have been notorius on leaving out many advanced features, and thus have limited its effectiveness to small, low powered pages.Its all in implementation, its not the relational database model that needs fixing, it is the underlying implementations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461008</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new ...</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1268411040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>UniVerse and <b>elated</b> products</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes! These products are <i>wonderful!</i> They are spectacular! They are a beam of sunshine refreshing my soul! I'm so happy with them! Daisies!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>UniVerse and elated productsYes !
These products are wonderful !
They are spectacular !
They are a beam of sunshine refreshing my soul !
I 'm so happy with them !
Daisies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UniVerse and elated productsYes!
These products are wonderful!
They are spectacular!
They are a beam of sunshine refreshing my soul!
I'm so happy with them!
Daisies!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461154</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268412060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be too quick to put Java down.. it's slower but it scales fairly well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be too quick to put Java down.. it 's slower but it scales fairly well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be too quick to put Java down.. it's slower but it scales fairly well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461566</id>
	<title>Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268416380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This field should not be about following trends, though unfortunately, that's how most people choose which technologies to use</p></div><p>Sigh.  Most people seem to be <i>stuck</i> on following trends&mdash;in pretty much every aspect of their lives.  Why think when you can conform to the crowd?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This field should not be about following trends , though unfortunately , that 's how most people choose which technologies to useSigh .
Most people seem to be stuck on following trends    in pretty much every aspect of their lives .
Why think when you can conform to the crowd ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This field should not be about following trends, though unfortunately, that's how most people choose which technologies to useSigh.
Most people seem to be stuck on following trends—in pretty much every aspect of their lives.
Why think when you can conform to the crowd?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461926</id>
	<title>Re:Away from LAMP?</title>
	<author>Loconut1389</author>
	<datestamp>1268420460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LACP = Link Aggregation Control Protocol. Already taken. But I'm up for a LAPP dance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LACP = Link Aggregation Control Protocol .
Already taken .
But I 'm up for a LAPP dance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LACP = Link Aggregation Control Protocol.
Already taken.
But I'm up for a LAPP dance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463682</id>
	<title>Uh - these DBs have been around for years and year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268493180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh - these DBs have been around for years and years. C-Tree, Raima, and other DBs are non-SQL and FAST. No DB server involved, so high concurrency wasn't a good idea. We used them for individual per-user DBs. Also, they are fine for write-once, read-many data needs.</p><p>I had 10+yrs using them before I was introduced to SQL-based DBs. Back then, MySQL, msql weren't mature enough to trust any data.  The only other options were the expensive SQL vendor DBs.  Those didn't work for our world-wide royalty free software distribution requirements.  We started with Raima (before Velocis) and ended up migrating to C-Tree. BLAZINGLY FAST doesn't describe how fast it was. I think Raima could have been fast too, but that part of the program was written by an engineer, not a CS artist.  The Engineer left our team and the CS guy rewrote everything in C-Tree. I think it costs 20x less that way too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh - these DBs have been around for years and years .
C-Tree , Raima , and other DBs are non-SQL and FAST .
No DB server involved , so high concurrency was n't a good idea .
We used them for individual per-user DBs .
Also , they are fine for write-once , read-many data needs.I had 10 + yrs using them before I was introduced to SQL-based DBs .
Back then , MySQL , msql were n't mature enough to trust any data .
The only other options were the expensive SQL vendor DBs .
Those did n't work for our world-wide royalty free software distribution requirements .
We started with Raima ( before Velocis ) and ended up migrating to C-Tree .
BLAZINGLY FAST does n't describe how fast it was .
I think Raima could have been fast too , but that part of the program was written by an engineer , not a CS artist .
The Engineer left our team and the CS guy rewrote everything in C-Tree .
I think it costs 20x less that way too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh - these DBs have been around for years and years.
C-Tree, Raima, and other DBs are non-SQL and FAST.
No DB server involved, so high concurrency wasn't a good idea.
We used them for individual per-user DBs.
Also, they are fine for write-once, read-many data needs.I had 10+yrs using them before I was introduced to SQL-based DBs.
Back then, MySQL, msql weren't mature enough to trust any data.
The only other options were the expensive SQL vendor DBs.
Those didn't work for our world-wide royalty free software distribution requirements.
We started with Raima (before Velocis) and ended up migrating to C-Tree.
BLAZINGLY FAST doesn't describe how fast it was.
I think Raima could have been fast too, but that part of the program was written by an engineer, not a CS artist.
The Engineer left our team and the CS guy rewrote everything in C-Tree.
I think it costs 20x less that way too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461610</id>
	<title>Seems odd to be keeping PhP</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1268416800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>  The data of course is the taxed part of structure, depend as it does on how
much previous activative there has been on the subject at Digg, but it seems
strange to still be keep the other parts of LAMP, and not to moving to a
structure its everything is clustered, the including the web server and the
application code. Cassandra is based on Java, and storing map and objects,
it would make sense to me if they over from apache and php, to apache tomcat,
or maybe glass fish. I guess now we'll all have to have Cassandra on our CVs to look professional.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Databases/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Databases</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The data of course is the taxed part of structure , depend as it does on how much previous activative there has been on the subject at Digg , but it seems strange to still be keep the other parts of LAMP , and not to moving to a structure its everything is clustered , the including the web server and the application code .
Cassandra is based on Java , and storing map and objects , it would make sense to me if they over from apache and php , to apache tomcat , or maybe glass fish .
I guess now we 'll all have to have Cassandra on our CVs to look professional .
--- Databases [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  The data of course is the taxed part of structure, depend as it does on how
much previous activative there has been on the subject at Digg, but it seems
strange to still be keep the other parts of LAMP, and not to moving to a
structure its everything is clustered, the including the web server and the
application code.
Cassandra is based on Java, and storing map and objects,
it would make sense to me if they over from apache and php, to apache tomcat,
or maybe glass fish.
I guess now we'll all have to have Cassandra on our CVs to look professional.
---

Databases [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462688</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268476020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What large scale website is running some retarded JVM and Java? I can tell you because they are all slow as hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What large scale website is running some retarded JVM and Java ?
I can tell you because they are all slow as hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What large scale website is running some retarded JVM and Java?
I can tell you because they are all slow as hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461480</id>
	<title>Somethings not right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268415360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is this thing, it's called archiving. Sounds like another example of software developers pretending to be DBA's, if you ask me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is this thing , it 's called archiving .
Sounds like another example of software developers pretending to be DBA 's , if you ask me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is this thing, it's called archiving.
Sounds like another example of software developers pretending to be DBA's, if you ask me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461148</id>
	<title>Re:Which DB is better?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268412060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole NoSQL concept takes a little getting used to. I'm not knocking by any means, I've just been using the whole relational model for decades and need to digest this new approach before I can fully embrace it.<br> <br>
You can try <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column-oriented\_DBMS" title="wikipedia.org">this wiki page</a> [wikipedia.org] for an explanation of the concept.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole NoSQL concept takes a little getting used to .
I 'm not knocking by any means , I 've just been using the whole relational model for decades and need to digest this new approach before I can fully embrace it .
You can try this wiki page [ wikipedia.org ] for an explanation of the concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole NoSQL concept takes a little getting used to.
I'm not knocking by any means, I've just been using the whole relational model for decades and need to digest this new approach before I can fully embrace it.
You can try this wiki page [wikipedia.org] for an explanation of the concept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462268</id>
	<title>Re:Allergic reaction to MySQL</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1268511600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I haven't seen any consideration from potential "NoSQL" adopters of the benefits of using a good relational database like PostgreSQL.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The adopters of NoSQL deal with huge volumes of worthless information.  They don't care about transactional integrity as much as they care about performance, which is why they chose MySQL over a good relational database in the first place.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen any consideration from potential " NoSQL " adopters of the benefits of using a good relational database like PostgreSQL .
The adopters of NoSQL deal with huge volumes of worthless information .
They do n't care about transactional integrity as much as they care about performance , which is why they chose MySQL over a good relational database in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen any consideration from potential "NoSQL" adopters of the benefits of using a good relational database like PostgreSQL.
The adopters of NoSQL deal with huge volumes of worthless information.
They don't care about transactional integrity as much as they care about performance, which is why they chose MySQL over a good relational database in the first place.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462930</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268480520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other day I was looking to get Fallout 3 expansions, the best advices came from a reddit thread.<br>Sure that's not digg, but maybe there's some hope to find actual relevant information there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other day I was looking to get Fallout 3 expansions , the best advices came from a reddit thread.Sure that 's not digg , but maybe there 's some hope to find actual relevant information there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other day I was looking to get Fallout 3 expansions, the best advices came from a reddit thread.Sure that's not digg, but maybe there's some hope to find actual relevant information there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461740</id>
	<title>Re:Away from LAMP?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1268418180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Sorry, LACP is already taken.  You Linux folken can't have it, it belongs to the network itself, (IEEE 802.3ad)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p><p>
LAMP was meant to mean  Linux Apache Mysql and <b>Perl</b> though.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , LACP is already taken .
You Linux folken ca n't have it , it belongs to the network itself , ( IEEE 802.3ad ) : ) LAMP was meant to mean Linux Apache Mysql and Perl though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Sorry, LACP is already taken.
You Linux folken can't have it, it belongs to the network itself, (IEEE 802.3ad) :)

LAMP was meant to mean  Linux Apache Mysql and Perl though.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462258</id>
	<title>Re:Database Evolution</title>
	<author>DogDude</author>
	<datestamp>1268511420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I imagine with the continual growth of these social networks, high performance DB methodologies will experience tremendous growth, and perhaps even paradigm shifts in the way we logically think and design database architectures.</i> <br> <br>
Your statement that social networks push databases to their theoretical limits is laughable.  Larger, more frequently accessed, more complicated databases have existed for years (decades?) before the current crop of Friendster clones existed.  Just because Facebook is the largest, most "high performance" database application that <i>you</i> can think of doesn't make it remotely true.  <br> <br>
The problem of dealing with very large, frequently changing databases has been addressed and solved, already.  The problem is that most PHP-monkeys have -zero- database knowledge, and instead of doing the work to figure out the right way to do things, they feel like they need to re-invent the wheel.  A better solution is to pick up a book written by somebody who's been working with RDBMS' for a few decades.  It's not a quick fix, but this problem has already been solved many, many times over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine with the continual growth of these social networks , high performance DB methodologies will experience tremendous growth , and perhaps even paradigm shifts in the way we logically think and design database architectures .
Your statement that social networks push databases to their theoretical limits is laughable .
Larger , more frequently accessed , more complicated databases have existed for years ( decades ?
) before the current crop of Friendster clones existed .
Just because Facebook is the largest , most " high performance " database application that you can think of does n't make it remotely true .
The problem of dealing with very large , frequently changing databases has been addressed and solved , already .
The problem is that most PHP-monkeys have -zero- database knowledge , and instead of doing the work to figure out the right way to do things , they feel like they need to re-invent the wheel .
A better solution is to pick up a book written by somebody who 's been working with RDBMS ' for a few decades .
It 's not a quick fix , but this problem has already been solved many , many times over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine with the continual growth of these social networks, high performance DB methodologies will experience tremendous growth, and perhaps even paradigm shifts in the way we logically think and design database architectures.
Your statement that social networks push databases to their theoretical limits is laughable.
Larger, more frequently accessed, more complicated databases have existed for years (decades?
) before the current crop of Friendster clones existed.
Just because Facebook is the largest, most "high performance" database application that you can think of doesn't make it remotely true.
The problem of dealing with very large, frequently changing databases has been addressed and solved, already.
The problem is that most PHP-monkeys have -zero- database knowledge, and instead of doing the work to figure out the right way to do things, they feel like they need to re-invent the wheel.
A better solution is to pick up a book written by somebody who's been working with RDBMS' for a few decades.
It's not a quick fix, but this problem has already been solved many, many times over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460986</id>
	<title>Re:Reddit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268410920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if you run a site full of teenagers with zero buying power who think that steeling is the best thing ever - Cassandra is for YOU!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you run a site full of teenagers with zero buying power who think that steeling is the best thing ever - Cassandra is for YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you run a site full of teenagers with zero buying power who think that steeling is the best thing ever - Cassandra is for YOU!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31469080</id>
	<title>Firebird</title>
	<author>ProfessionalHostage</author>
	<datestamp>1268494200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.firebirdsql.org/" title="firebirdsql.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.firebirdsql.org/</a> [firebirdsql.org]</p><p>Firebird is a relational database offering many ANSI SQL standard features that runs on Linux, Windows, and a variety of Unix platforms. Firebird offers excellent concurrency, high performance, and powerful language support for stored procedures and triggers. It has been used in production systems, under a variety of names, since 1981.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.firebirdsql.org/ [ firebirdsql.org ] Firebird is a relational database offering many ANSI SQL standard features that runs on Linux , Windows , and a variety of Unix platforms .
Firebird offers excellent concurrency , high performance , and powerful language support for stored procedures and triggers .
It has been used in production systems , under a variety of names , since 1981 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.firebirdsql.org/ [firebirdsql.org]Firebird is a relational database offering many ANSI SQL standard features that runs on Linux, Windows, and a variety of Unix platforms.
Firebird offers excellent concurrency, high performance, and powerful language support for stored procedures and triggers.
It has been used in production systems, under a variety of names, since 1981.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462598</id>
	<title>How one use these NoSQL thinsanyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268474160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I keep hearing about these noSQL solutions, but I can't find a single example!

</p><p>For example, how do you do some SELECT with couple of JOINS? How do you do SUM over GROUP of things etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or for that matter how one creates table?

</p><p>And, yes, <em>I have searched</em> for Hadoop and others but all I get these odd pages with no examples.

</p><p>I'm probably too damn idiot for these NoSQL solutions, since can't find a good tutorial for converting SQL app to one of these.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I keep hearing about these noSQL solutions , but I ca n't find a single example !
For example , how do you do some SELECT with couple of JOINS ?
How do you do SUM over GROUP of things etc .
... or for that matter how one creates table ?
And , yes , I have searched for Hadoop and others but all I get these odd pages with no examples .
I 'm probably too damn idiot for these NoSQL solutions , since ca n't find a good tutorial for converting SQL app to one of these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I keep hearing about these noSQL solutions, but I can't find a single example!
For example, how do you do some SELECT with couple of JOINS?
How do you do SUM over GROUP of things etc.
... or for that matter how one creates table?
And, yes, I have searched for Hadoop and others but all I get these odd pages with no examples.
I'm probably too damn idiot for these NoSQL solutions, since can't find a good tutorial for converting SQL app to one of these.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460780</id>
	<title>Away from LAMP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268409480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or away from MySQL? There is a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or away from MySQL ?
There is a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or away from MySQL?
There is a difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916</id>
	<title>Which DB is better?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268410380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I too have a site running on MySQL and I am thinking of switching.</p><p>Can anyone tell me if there is any "<b>comparison chart</b>" listing the various features / usability of the various OSS DB packages available so I can make a better educated decision?</p><p>Please help !</p><p>Thank you !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too have a site running on MySQL and I am thinking of switching.Can anyone tell me if there is any " comparison chart " listing the various features / usability of the various OSS DB packages available so I can make a better educated decision ? Please help ! Thank you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too have a site running on MySQL and I am thinking of switching.Can anyone tell me if there is any "comparison chart" listing the various features / usability of the various OSS DB packages available so I can make a better educated decision?Please help !Thank you !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31493054</id>
	<title>Re:Away from LAMP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268735700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>C</b>assandra<br><b>L</b>inux<br><b>A</b>pache<br><b>P</b>erl</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CassandraLinuxApachePerl</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CassandraLinuxApachePerl</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461314</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook, Twitter and now Digg</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1268413740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The risk is not total loss of the entire database but occasional corruption here and there.  However, for Facebook that's tolerable as long as it doesn't rise to a level such that it irritates the users.  Given that the average Facebook user can't remember her best friend's phone number, that's a pretty high level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The risk is not total loss of the entire database but occasional corruption here and there .
However , for Facebook that 's tolerable as long as it does n't rise to a level such that it irritates the users .
Given that the average Facebook user ca n't remember her best friend 's phone number , that 's a pretty high level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The risk is not total loss of the entire database but occasional corruption here and there.
However, for Facebook that's tolerable as long as it doesn't rise to a level such that it irritates the users.
Given that the average Facebook user can't remember her best friend's phone number, that's a pretty high level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461178</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31469804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31493054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31478820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31469266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31470472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31464440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0126224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31469804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31464440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31493054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31470472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31460910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31478820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0126224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462582
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31469266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31463980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31462318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0126224.31461566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
