Hi, I've summarized Anca's findings below (great testing btw ;-) , I bet we should do this more often) :
[snip] | Standard SQL | Lucene | Optimized SQL | Winner initial loading of the articles, in a newly started server | 30-40 seconds | up to 20 (15-16) | around 10 | OSQL initial load of the interface, in a non-newly started server | ~15 seconds | ~4-5 on average (but can go up to 10) | 7 | Lucene click on the All group | around 7-8-9 seconds | 1 second | 5 on average, from 3 to 7 | Lucene click on a feed with 1023 articles | 3 seconds | from under a second to a couple seconds | under a second (0.7-0.8) | OSQL pagination navigation | 2-3 seconds | a second on average | 2-3 on average | Lucene As we can see Lucene still has the edge a majority of times, but Optimized SQL comes close in most cases. As far as my understanding of this issue goes, I'd advise going for SQL optimization instead of Lucene for the following reasons : - It is better suited to handle the highly structured data coming from XWiki Watch - It already offers a good performance and could deliver even more if fully implemented - It goes in the right way in terms of making the XWiki Watch distribution on par with other XWiki products (such as XWS & XEM) in terms of code organization (client-side / server-side) - The Lucene indexing engine integration with XWiki is still error-prone - Lucene doesn't work for real-time actions that are used a lot in XWiki Watch Which is why, on the whole, SQL Optimization seems better than Lucene to me. Please tell me if I've missed something. Guillaume -- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki Skype ID : wikibc http://blog.xwiki.com/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
