I couldn't think of anything offhand that would account for that, so I looked at several AE descriptors including the assertion component, plus the LookupDesc_Db.xml, and didn't see anything obvious. To narrow down as Pei suggested, perhaps use the CVD to annotate one of the larger files and compare the performance reports generated.
-- James > -----Original Message----- > From: ctakes-dev-return-1266-Masanz.James=mayo....@incubator.apache.org > [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-1266- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Chen, Pei > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:13 PM > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: cTAKES 3.0 appears to be 10x slower than cTAKES 2.5 > > This is interesting. Just curious, were you able to narrow down which > component was slower? I know that 3.0 includes the full LVG while 2.5 > has simple/test LVG by default. But 10x seems pretty extreme... > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:09 PM, "Kim Ebert" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I am doing a comparison of cTAKES 2.5 and cTAKES 3.0 for a 100 > document test corpus. > > > > Timing how long it took, I found that cTAKES 2.5 took 1,490.397 > seconds while cTAKES 3.0 took 21,119.485 seconds. It seems like a major > slowdown in performance. > > > > I used the following analysis engine for cTAKES 3.0: > > > > desc/ctakes-clinical- > pipeline/desc/analysis_engine/AggregatePlaintextUMLSProcessor.xml > > > > I used the following analysis engine for cTAKES 2.5: > > > > cTAKESdesc/cdpdesc/analysis_engine/AggregatePlaintextUMLSProcessor.xml > > > > Any thoughts on why such a difference in performance? > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Kim Ebert > > 1.801.669.7342 > > Perfect Search Corp > > http://www.perfectsearchcorp.com/ > >
