Actually, that's quite expected. Java Lucene developers are trying to
accelerate performance by avoiding GC operations and creating new objects
when possible, and that of course helps our C++ port to perform faster as
well.

Unfortunately we currently don't have the time to perform benchmarks, not
against previous versions and not against Java Lucene. We welcome any such
info, and really hope to get more hands on deck. See
http://clucene.sourceforge.net/contribute.shtml for possible ways you could
get involved.

Itamar.

-----Original Message-----
From: cel tix44 [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 3:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [CLucene-dev] Indexing performance 2.3.2 vs 0.9.21b

Team

When testing 2.3.2, I've noticed a significant increase in the indexing
speed -- up to 7x -- as compared to 0.9.21b. Has anyone else seen this
effect? -- if yes, shouldn't this be given more publicity?
-- maybe, that'll encourage 9.21 users to give more help to development?

Regards
Celto

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus
on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
CLucene-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clucene-developers



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
CLucene-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clucene-developers

Reply via email to