Suggestions on handling Transactions with Fuseki

[Trevor Donaldson <tm...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

I have the following use case.

1. Update triple (delete / insert using sparql queries)

I was going to perform my updates by creating a list of deletes (sparql
queries) and a list of inserts (sparql queries), then I was going to
persist delete batch and persist insert batch. The problem with this logic
is that, if for some reason one of the insert statements doesn't work, then
I have deleted the triple with no way to rollback. Has anyone ran into this
problem? Does anyone have any suggestions on how to transactionalize the
deletes / inserts? I was thinking about handling them one statement at a
time. One delete with one insert.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance,
Trevor

Re: Suggestions on handling Transactions with Fuseki

[Trevor Donaldson <tm...@gmail.com>]

Thanks Stephen and  James. This fits what I needed exactly.
On Apr 9, 2015 12:32 AM, "Stephen Allen" <sa...@apache.org> wrote:

> Trevor,
>
> SPARQL Update supports multiple operations in a single update request.  The
> entire request is atomic.  So either all operations are applied, or none of
> them are.  You can perform multiple operations by separating them with a
> semicolon.  Example update request string:
>
>     prefix : <http://example.org/>
>     delete data { :a :b :c . :a :b :d . } ;
>     insert data { :a :b :x . :a :b :y . }
>
> Additionally you can mix in delete/insert/where operations as well.
>
> If you want true remote transactions that allow you to do read queries
> along with update queries in a single transaction, then you are out of luck
> for the moment.  I do have plans to implement that at some point in the
> near future however.
>
> -Stephen
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 8, 2015, Trevor Donaldson <tm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have the following use case.
> >
> > 1. Update triple (delete / insert using sparql queries)
> >
> > I was going to perform my updates by creating a list of deletes (sparql
> > queries) and a list of inserts (sparql queries), then I was going to
> > persist delete batch and persist insert batch. The problem with this
> logic
> > is that, if for some reason one of the insert statements doesn't work,
> then
> > I have deleted the triple with no way to rollback. Has anyone ran into
> this
> > problem? Does anyone have any suggestions on how to transactionalize the
> > deletes / inserts? I was thinking about handling them one statement at a
> > time. One delete with one insert.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Trevor
> >
>

Re: Suggestions on handling Transactions with Fuseki

[Stephen Allen <sa...@apache.org>]

Trevor,

SPARQL Update supports multiple operations in a single update request.  The
entire request is atomic.  So either all operations are applied, or none of
them are.  You can perform multiple operations by separating them with a
semicolon.  Example update request string:

    prefix : <http://example.org/>
    delete data { :a :b :c . :a :b :d . } ;
    insert data { :a :b :x . :a :b :y . }

Additionally you can mix in delete/insert/where operations as well.

If you want true remote transactions that allow you to do read queries
along with update queries in a single transaction, then you are out of luck
for the moment.  I do have plans to implement that at some point in the
near future however.

-Stephen


On Wednesday, April 8, 2015, Trevor Donaldson <tm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have the following use case.
>
> 1. Update triple (delete / insert using sparql queries)
>
> I was going to perform my updates by creating a list of deletes (sparql
> queries) and a list of inserts (sparql queries), then I was going to
> persist delete batch and persist insert batch. The problem with this logic
> is that, if for some reason one of the insert statements doesn't work, then
> I have deleted the triple with no way to rollback. Has anyone ran into this
> problem? Does anyone have any suggestions on how to transactionalize the
> deletes / inserts? I was thinking about handling them one statement at a
> time. One delete with one insert.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Trevor
>