This looks great… thanks! I think I noticed a small typo in the first post that confused me: https://dev.to/quoll/asami-7ll > It turns out that these 3 orderings allow someone to find all matching statements for any given group of subject, predicate, and object. Interestingly, the remaining 3 possible orderings also permit this. Shouldn’t that be “these 6 orderings”? 3 would imply there are no remaining 3. again many thanks 🙇

I just read this and it says what I meant to say. I tweaked the sentence a little, in case that might help.

- Subject, Predicate, Object - Predicate, Object, Subject - Object, Subject Predicate There are 6 possible orderings (calculated as 3! or 3 factorial). It turns out that the 3 orderings shown here allow someone to find all matching statements for any given group of subject, predicate, and object. Interestingly, the remaining 3 possible orderings also permit this. The two groups of orderings are distinct, in that any group that tried to contain ordering from more than one group would need more than 3 indices to be able to fulfill every possible query.

Not shown in the post are the other 3: - object,predicate,subject - predicate,subject,object - subject,object,predicate

Those would also work. They’re a complement to the other set

ok that reads better thanks. I think I understood what you were saying, as I read a paper on this subject a few years back. Essentially you don’t need full coverage of all index permutations, as the two groups are ultimately equivalent.

Yes

But when you get to 4 values, you have 4 groups that are equivalent, and each group is 6 in size

:thumbsup:

I didn’t mean to drag you back online though! Sorry about that 🙂

Fortunately, a few of the indexes are almost never used, since each value has a different use. So Asami doesn’t use all 6

Just 4

And the 4th one isn’t a tree index, which helps

But I’ll get to that (I haven’t written it yet, though the code has been built)