[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2056?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12879257#action_12879257
]
Steven Rowe commented on LUCENE-2056:
-------------------------------------
I used an index built from Reuters line docs, and for the queries, the 92
English queries from AnswerBus's most recent 100 queries, with question and
quotation marks stripped.
On Windows Vista 64-bit, 2 CPU cores (Intel Core 2 [email protected]), Sun JDK
1.6.0_15 64-bit:
||Directory||runCnt||recsPerRun||rec/s||
|FSDirectory|40|2279|379.73|
|DirectNIOFSDirectory|40|2171|361.73|(5% slower)|
On Windows 7 64-bit, 4 CPU cores (Intel Core i5 750 @ 2.67 GHz), Sun JDK
1.6.0_20 64-bit:
||Directory||runCnt||recsPerRun||rec/s||
|FSDirectory|40|2754|458.92|
|DirectNIOFSDirectory|40|2658|442.61|(4% slower)|
> Should NIOFSDir use direct ByteBuffers?
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2056
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2056
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Store
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-2056.patch
>
>
> I'm trying to test NRT performance, and noticed when I dump the thread stacks
> that the darned threads often seem to be in
> {{java.nio.Bits.copyToByteArray(Native Method)}}... so I wondered whether we
> could/should use direct ByteBuffers, and whether that would gain performance
> in general. We currently just use our own byte[] buffer via
> BufferedIndexInput.
> It's hard to test since it's likely platform specific, but if it does result
> in gains it could be an easy win.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
