: I have seen this issue come up several times (perhaps the following is
: an oversimplification):
: Someone will suggest a performance enhancement and perhaps supply the
: code. Then there will be a general discussion about the merits of the
: change and the validity of the results, with question
ibles. And the minimum
hardware requirement is a Win98 laptop, which many of our user's have.)
-Original Message-
From: DM Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 7:07 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: NioFile cache performance
John Haxby wro
y, December 09, 2005 4:24 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: NioFile cache performance
Robert Engels wrote:
> Using a 4mb file (so I could be "guarantee" the disk data would be in
> the OS cache as well), the test shows the following results.
Which OS? If it
, 2005 7:07 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: NioFile cache performance
John Haxby wrote:
> Robert Engels wrote:
>
>> Using a 4mb file (so I could be "guarantee" the disk data would be in
>> the OS cache as well), the test shows the following results.
>
John Haxby wrote:
Robert Engels wrote:
Using a 4mb file (so I could be "guarantee" the disk data would be in
the OS cache as well), the test shows the following results.
Which OS? If it's Linux, what kernel version and distro? What
hardware (disk type, controller etc).
It's important
Robert Engels wrote:
Using a 4mb file (so I could be "guarantee" the disk data would be in
the OS cache as well), the test shows the following results.
Which OS? If it's Linux, what kernel version and distro? What
hardware (disk type, controller etc).
It's important to know: I/O (and ca
switches into the
OS will be avoided.
-Original Message-From: Paul Smith
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:54
PMTo: java-dev@lucene.apache.orgSubject: Re: NioFile
cache performance
Most of the CPU
time is actually used during the
Most of the CPU time is actually used during the synchronization with multiple threads. I hacked together a version of MemoryLRUCache that used a ConcurrentHashMap from JDK 1.5, and it was another 50% faster ! At a minimum, if the ReadWriteLock class was modified to use the 1.5 facilities some si
ugh for most
applications.
I will attempt to get some performance numbers using/not using NioFile
performing actual Lucene queries.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Engels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:37 AM
To: Lucene-Dev
Subject: NioFile cache perf
I finally got around
to writing a testcase to verify the numbers I presented. The following testcase
and results are for the lowest level disk operations. On my machine reading from
the cache, vs. going to disk (even when the data is in the OS cache) is 30%-40%
faster. Since Lucene makes ext
10 matches
Mail list logo
