I think, at first, it is just a simple comparison of results of the same code with the same index on the same hardware.
After then, some optimizations specific to to .Net or Java (or more complex test cases) can be thought. DIGY. -----Original Message----- From: Todd Carrico [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Lucene Java Vs .Net My issue with this type of comparison is the difference in hardware. Small differences can make a big impact. What are you doing to make sure this is apples to apples as far as hardware goes? tc -----Original Message----- From: Digy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Lucene Java Vs .Net Hi Shashi [email protected] could be a good place to discuss your tests and results. I eagerly wait your results. DIGY -----Original Message----- From: Shashi Kant [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Lucene Java Vs .Net Hi, I am bumping up this thread to see if there are any further inputs on this. I was planning on running a benchmarking test for .NET vs Java for both Indexing & Querying (single field, multi field, span etc.), and would be happy to share my results. I would be using the PubMed corpus of biomedical literature and running indexing on a few million articles. I would be interested to see if others are running on other corpora, sharing ideas would be very helpful IMHO. Regards, Shashi On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Matt Honeycutt <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't compared Lucene to Lucene.NET, but I have seen huge performance > improvements in Weka on .NET vs. Java. Taking the Java jar files and using > IKVM.NET to produce a .NET assembly resulted in a huge performance > improvement. I would fully expect Lucene.NET to hold a similar performance > advantage over its Java equivalent. > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Granroth, Neal V. < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd also be interested in hearing about performance differences between the >> two. Out of idle curiosity I run a few very basic trials. I expected there >> to be no noticeable difference, but was surprised to find the .NET >> application ran 3x faster than the Java equivalent. >> >> -- Neal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Wayne Douglas >> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:46 AM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Lucene Java Vs .Net >> >> Does anyone have any benchmark data on the performance of these two - >> purely >> out of interest :) >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Andreas Mummenhoff <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > yes, >> > Lucene.Net is a class-per-class, API-per-API and algorithmatic port of >> the >> > Java Version. The release numbers are the same, so Java Lucene 2.3.1 ~= >> > Lucene.Net 2.3.1 >> > And the consequence of this is index compatibility, so you can search and >> > fill a Lucene.Net index with Java Lucene and the other way round. >> > >> > Andreas >> > >> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> > Von: MBVV.Satish [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Gesendet: Montag, 4. Mai 2009 22:47 >> > An: [email protected] >> > Betreff: Lucene Java Vs .Net >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > We are currently using Java based Lucene in one of our products. We have >> a >> > product in Microsoft .Net where we intend to use Lucene.Net. >> > My question is.... >> > 1.) Is Lucene.Net has all the features of Java version? or is there any >> > specific limitation to .Net version? >> > 2.) Is Lucene.Net is class-per-class, API-per-API and algorithmatic port >> > of Java Version? if so are the releases comparable by release numbers >> i.e., >> > .Net 2.3 with Java 2.3? >> > 3.) Is it possible to use the same Lucene indexes in Java Version as well >> > as .Net Version? >> > >> > Please answer my above questions so that it will be helpful in deciding >> on >> > the use of Lucene .Net. >> > >> > Thanks >> > Satish >> > >> > >> > Now surf faster and smarter ! Check out the new Firefox 3 - Yahoo! >> > Edition http://downloads.yahoo.com/in/firefox/?fr=om_email_firefox >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> w:// >> >
