On Apr 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, karl wettin wrote:
And if possible, it would be very interesting to see results using -
d64 and -d32. And different platforms.
I only have easy access to one machine running Java: my G4 1.67 MHz
laptop, running Mac OS X 10.4.5. I agree that it would be very
in
3 apr 2006 kl. 17.26 skrev karl wettin:
Solaris: HP DL145, 1 x Dualcore Opteron 2.2 GHz, 4 GB of RAM
Linux: HP DL140 with 2x 3.06GHz Xeon CPUs and 4GB of RAM
If you want me to, and package the benchmark tests in a way simple
for me to run them, I'll run them on these machines for you.
The
On Apr 3, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Apr 3, 2006, at 5:43 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Plucene is a Lucene 1.3 port, so it doesn't have
max_buffered_docs -- but I can set merge_factor to 1000.
I would not recommend that. With a merge factor that high
On Apr 3, 2006, at 5:43 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Plucene is a Lucene 1.3 port, so it doesn't have max_buffered_docs
-- but I can set merge_factor to 1000.
I would not recommend that. With a merge factor that high you may
run out of file handles, and, moreover, I do
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Plucene is a Lucene 1.3 port, so it doesn't have max_buffered_docs --
but I can set merge_factor to 1000.
I would not recommend that. With a merge factor that high you may run
out of file handles, and, moreover, I doubt that disks are very
efficient when reading from
On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:11 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
You might still, if you have time, try swapping in something like
StopAnalyzer and/or turning off Field.Store.YES. The relative
speeds of the various implementations may vary in interesting ways,
since these paramters may emphasize differen
On Apr 3, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(indexDir,
new WhitespaceAnalyzer(), true);
Please make sure that analyzers are comparable between the various
engines you benchmark. WhitespaceAnalyzer is efficient, but
On Apr 3, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
A couple of points:
- Are all the lucene variations using the same index parameters?
max buffered docs, index format (compound or not), mergeFactor, etc
I personally use non-compound index format, max buffered docs=1000,
mergeFactor=10
Doug Cutting wrote:
Please make sure that analyzers are comparable between the various
engines you benchmark.
I just went back and re-read what you're benchmarking, and they're all
versions of Lucene, so you're probably already using comparable
analyzers! Sorry for not noticing that the firs
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(indexDir,
new WhitespaceAnalyzer(), true);
Please make sure that analyzers are comparable between the various
engines you benchmark. WhitespaceAnalyzer is efficient, but results in
far more tokens and terms than, e.g., Sto
3 apr 2006 kl. 16.50 skrev Grant Ingersoll:
And if possible, it would be very interesting to see results using
-d64 and -d32. And different platforms. So far I've got best
results in decending order on Solaris, OS X and last(!) Linux.
Solaris is straight out amazing under heavy load. Might
karl wettin wrote:
And if possible, it would be very interesting to see results using
-d64 and -d32. And different platforms. So far I've got best results
in decending order on Solaris, OS X and last(!) Linux. Solaris is
straight out amazing under heavy load. Might even do the switch next
3 apr 2006 kl. 15.57 skrev Yonik Seeley:
- use enough heap so too much time isn't taken in GC
I recommend -XX:+AggressiveHeap.
And if possible, it would be very interesting to see results using -
d64 and -d32. And different platforms. So far I've got best results
in decending order on
Hi Marvin,
A couple of points:
- Are all the lucene variations using the same index parameters?
max buffered docs, index format (compound or not), mergeFactor, etc
I personally use non-compound index format, max buffered docs=1000,
mergeFactor=10
- reading in the file line by line probably
14 matches
Mail list logo
