incubator-ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kim Ebert <kim.eb...@perfectsearchcorp.com>
Subject Re: cTAKES 3.0 appears to be 10x slower than cTAKES 2.5
Date Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:15:42 GMT
I haven't been able to reproduce this. I wonder if this is a JVM issue. 
I will let everyone know if I see the issue again.

Kim Ebert
1.801.669.7342
Perfect Search Corp
http://www.perfectsearchcorp.com/


On 02/22/2013 05:22 PM, Kim Ebert wrote:
> I re-ran ctakes 2.5 using the full LVG, and that didn't cause the 
> performance to change for cTAKES 2.5.
>
> I did try removing the "hsqldb-1.8.0.10.jar" in the lib folder for the 
> 3.0 release, and I found that my performance was better at 4,037 
> seconds. I would like to re-run my cTAKES 3.0 with the 
> "hsqldb-1.8.0.10.jar" to see if these results are consistent.
>
> Kim Ebert
> 1.801.669.7342
> Perfect Search Corp
> http://www.perfectsearchcorp.com/
>
>
> On 02/21/2013 04:12 PM, Kim Ebert wrote:
>> I think this may have been user error on my part. I'll post a follow 
>> up if it is something other than user error.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Kim Ebert
>> 1.801.669.7342
>> Perfect Search Corp
>> http://www.perfectsearchcorp.com/
>>
>>
>> On 02/21/2013 01:01 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote:
>>> I couldn't think of anything offhand that would account for that, so 
>>> I looked at several AE descriptors including the assertion 
>>> component, plus the LookupDesc_Db.xml, and didn't see anything 
>>> obvious. To narrow down as Pei suggested, perhaps use the CVD to 
>>> annotate one of the larger files and compare the performance reports 
>>> generated.
>>>
>>> -- James
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: 
>>>> ctakes-dev-return-1266-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org
>>>> [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-1266-
>>>> Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org] On Behalf Of Chen, Pei
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:13 PM
>>>> To:<ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> Cc: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: cTAKES 3.0 appears to be 10x slower than cTAKES 2.5
>>>>
>>>> This is interesting. Just curious, were you able to narrow down which
>>>> component was slower?  I know that 3.0 includes the full LVG while 2.5
>>>> has simple/test LVG by default. But 10x seems pretty extreme...
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:09 PM, "Kim Ebert"
>>>> <kim.ebert@perfectsearchcorp.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am doing a comparison of cTAKES 2.5 and cTAKES 3.0 for a 100
>>>> document test corpus.
>>>>> Timing how long it took, I found that cTAKES 2.5 took 1,490.397
>>>> seconds while cTAKES 3.0 took 21,119.485 seconds. It seems like a 
>>>> major
>>>> slowdown in performance.
>>>>> I used the following analysis engine for cTAKES 3.0:
>>>>>
>>>>> desc/ctakes-clinical-
>>>> pipeline/desc/analysis_engine/AggregatePlaintextUMLSProcessor.xml
>>>>> I used the following analysis engine for cTAKES 2.5:
>>>>>
>>>>> cTAKESdesc/cdpdesc/analysis_engine/AggregatePlaintextUMLSProcessor.xml

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts on why such a difference in performance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Kim Ebert
>>>>> 1.801.669.7342
>>>>> Perfect Search Corp
>>>>> http://www.perfectsearchcorp.com/
>>>>>

Mime
View raw message