sure, nice article, big Ohhh notation should be addressed first, but try running Analyzers before Mike added char[] and compare try Indexing with some older versions, basically nothing significantly changed from the algorithmic point of view Doug set years ago, all that happened there is just reducing constant factors, See work on Scorers and Filters where Yonik and Paul made some NICE gains on constant factors, nothing in O(N) is better...
I am on your side and I prefer, when I can choose, to have nice algorithmic enhancements (e.g, one would be nice for SpellChecker that you cannot fix wit constant factors, some smart Edit Distance without traversing all terms, O(N) can e reduced and algos exist), but experience tells me that constant factor can hurt your performance equally bad as bad choice of algorithms... Work on flexibility and const. factor optimization is expected at this phase of lucene life cycle, Lucene is mature. imo, no need to worry, lucene commiters proved many times that they are not jumping too fast on accepting untested/unproved claims "great speed up by doing this or that"... standard answer is, "do you have valid test to prove it?" Both are important, performance is important for Lucene, at lest for me, it is money at the end, 10% faster means at lest 10% less hardware, 10% more user experience... ----- Original Message ---- > From: robert engels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, 23 July, 2008 10:01:54 PM > Subject: performance optimizations > > I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but I think this is an excellent > article that the Lucene development team might find helpful. > > I have often been dismayed at complex code being written to achieve > "negligible" performance improvements. Most often, a micro benchmark > is used to justify the change. > > Worse, spending effort putting hacks into Lucene when they are > clearly JVM bugs. I think it would be a far better use of resources > to lobby Sun/others through the appropriate channels to get the > underlying issue corrected. > > I know that there have been many performance improvements in Lucene > as of late, but almost all of these have been algorithm changes - not > obscure bit twiddling... > > Anyway, it is at http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/ > Interviews/community/pepperdine_qa.html > > Robert > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
