What Mike said. Without seeing the Javalutionized Lucene in action we won't get very far. jean-Philippe, are you interested in making the changes to Lucene and showing the performance improvement? Note that you can use the super-nice and easy to use contrib/benchmark to compare the "vanilla Lucene" and the "Javalutionized Lucene".
Otis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share ----- Original Message ---- From: Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:58:38 PM Subject: Re: Lucene and Javolution: A good mix ? On 4/4/07, Jean-Philippe Robichaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand your concerns! > > I was a little skeptical at the beginning. But even with the 1.5 jvm, > the improvements still holds. > > Lucene creates a lots of "garbage" (strings, tokens, ...) either at > index time or query time. While the new garbage collector strategies did > seriously improve since java 1.4, the gains are still there as the > object "creation" is also a cost that javolution easily saves us from. I think the best approach at convincing people would be to produce a patch that implements some of the suggested changes, and benchmark it. As it stands, the positives are all hypothetical and the negatives rather tangible. -MIke --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
