I'm not saying I'm against it, but one of the things that makes
Lucene so great is it's lack of dependencies in the core. It isn't
necessarily a slippery slope, either, if we do add one dependency.
Javolution is BSD license, AFAICT. I don't know if that is a good or
bad license as far as Apache is concerned, but it should be looked
into before you spend any time on it.
This is not meant to be a discouragement. If it shows a significant
improvement, people will notice and it will be taken seriously,
especially if it is backward compatible, well tested and well
documented.
-Grant
On Apr 5, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Jean-Philippe Robichaud wrote:
Yes, I believe enough in this approach to try it. I'm already
starting
to play with it. I took the current trunk and I'm starting to play
with
it. That begin said, I'm quite busy right now so I can't promise any
steady progress. Also, I won't apply patches that are already in
JIRA,
so the numbers I'll get won't be the 'up-to-date" ones.
I understand that before this idea gets any traction, we must have an
idea of how much this could help. But before going deep with this
work,
I wanted to know if Lucene developers have any interest in this
kind of
work. If the gurus dislike the idea of adding a dependency to Lucene
(which is not the case for others Apache projects!), then I won't
spend
too much time on this.
Jp
-----Original Message-----
From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:01 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Javolution: A good mix ?
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 <Jean-
[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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.grantingersoll.com/
http://lucene.grantingersoll.com
http://www.paperoftheweek.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
