I think this may have been user error on my part. I'll post a follow up
if it is something other than user error.
Thanks,
Kim Ebert
1.801.669.7342
Perfect Search Corp
http://www.perfectsearchcorp.com/
On 02/21/2013 01:01 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote:
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/
