On 10/11/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Balmain wrote:
> The start of my benchmarks are here:
>
> http://ferret.davebalmain.com/trac/wiki/FerretVsLucene
Ferret looks fast! Nice work.
A big knee in indexing performance occurs when indexes get much larger
than memory, when merging requires a lot of disk i/o. In these cases
the algorithm can matter more than its implementation. (The
implementation only needs to be fast enough so that i/o dominates.)
Would you expect Ferret to perform markedly differently than Lucene Java
when updating, e.g., 50GB indexes on a machine with 512MB of RAM?
I don't like to say without testing. I have 90Gb of Gutenburg text
here so I'll give that a go a little later on. You are probably
correct though, the difference may be a lot smaller.
Lots of indexes are smaller than memory and their updates don't require
a lot of disk i/o. It's important to be fast in that case too, and your
benchmarks show Ferret doing quite well there.
Doug
Thanks. That is especially the case in the Ruby community. Although I
would like Ferret working well for very large indexes, I don't see it
being used to build the next Google.
Cheers,
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
