On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:21:12 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 15.03.2011, 09:33 +0200 schrieb Adrien Bustany:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:10:18 +0100, Ville M. Vainio wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Patrick Ohly
> <patrick.o...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> I've said before and I say it again here, I consider performance
>> comparisons pointless at this time.
>
> Considering that e-d-s has a much more modest feature set than
> tracker
> (tracker in general being a much more ambitious project), I would
> have
> expected it to to trounce tracker in performance, which doesn't
seem
> to be the case.
>
> This evidence might prompt to re-evaluate this part of the
> architectural plans. Or at least leave the door open to
transitioning
> back to tracker when it's feasible.
If you're interested in the saving performance of both solutions, I
answered the thread on the Tracker ML (didn't want to cross-spam
Meego-Dev). If you abstract the fact that EDS has no batching API
(and
therefore seems to issue a fsync after saving each contact) by
running
it over libeatmydata, EDS is approximately twice faster than
qtcontacts-tracker (though that area is being optimized currently).
I
haven't done any contact fetching benchmarks.
Could you post an archive link here for convenience?
Thank you,
Mathias
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/tracker-list/2011-March/msg00035.html
Cheers
Adrien
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
MeeGo-dev@meego.com
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
