On 01/02/2017 01:44, Kasi Lakshman Karthi Anbumony wrote:
(1) Is Lucy multithreaded or single threaded?
Single-threaded.
(2) Are "C" runtime and bindings stable?
Yes.
(2) Is there preexisting benchmark code written in "C" to measure Lucy
performance?
No.
(3) I am seeing one under devel/benchmarks/indexers/LuceneIndexer.java. But
this one is written in Java and looks like benchmarking Lucene not Lucy. Am I
right in my observation?
The corresponding Perl benchmark script for Lucy is lucy_indexer.plx:
https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucy.git;a=tree;f=devel/benchmarks/indexers;h=77626c37285602941376c5e5950a20e50683da40;hb=HEAD
(4) I was thinking of modifying the lucy/c/sample applications as benchmarking
application. Is this a good strategy.
Btw is there a good way to build sample files. I have to modify the Makefile in
luc/c/ directory to build the sample files and I am not sure if this is the
correct way.
You can find some guidance on how to compile Lucy applications in the comment
on top of getting_started.c:
https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucy.git;a=blob;f=c/sample/getting_started.c;h=6d6193d772f2ceaac86c67cc49169878b4d4d2f6;hb=HEAD
Basically, you have to run the Clownfish compiler "cfc" to generate header
files, then you can compile your code and link against libclownfish and liblucy.
Benchmark results for the indexer will largely depend on the particular
Analyzer chain and the total size of your index. The default EasyAnalyzer
consists of
- StandardTokenizer
- Unicode Normalizer
- SnowballStemmer
StandardTokenizer is pretty fast, but Normalizer and Stemmer are
CPU-intensive. Last time I checked, they account for about two-thirds of the
processing time for small indices.
A better benchmarking framework would be a much needed contribution.
Nick
