Thats exactly how i felt. No mention of JVM/Platform or options (or versions) used. I've just been bombarded with someone (who i can probably assume works or uses the afformentioned program) asking me why i use lucene on all of my projects.
The paper hardly seems acadamic even though it appears that is what they're going for. Thanks again for the quick follow up. --- Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Byron Miller wrote: > > > http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~mladen/pdf/Read6_u.pisa-attardi.tera.pdf > > > > Anyone have any further details on this? > > The first author of the paper is also the founder of > the company which > sells the software described, so these benchmarks > should not be > considered entirely objective. > > That's not to say that IXE is not faster than > Lucene, it might well be. > But they do not list any JVM details, the Lucene > version or any Lucene > options. Chances are, with a few informed tweaks, > one could improve > Lucene's performance on this benchmark. Chances are > also that IXE was > configured for optimal performance on this > benchmark, since it was > performed by the authors of IXE. > > Also note that this is a micro-benchmark, designed > to highlight their > skip implementation. A better comparison would > average times from a log > of real user queries. > > Please feel free to try to obtain the IXE software > and perform > benchmarks of your own. > > Doug >
