lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <>
Subject Re: lucene 1.3 RC3 compiled with gcj
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:34:59 GMT

I think these numbers could still easily be dominated by class loading. 
  Java classes are loaded on demand, and there are many classes which 
are probably loaded after the IndexFiles demo records the start time. 
I'd guess that there is no class loading with gcj.  It would be better 
to use a benchmark that takes at least 10-20 seconds.  For example, try 
using IndexFiles or IndexHTML on the JDK documentation.



Andi Vajda wrote:
> The numbers are the ones that are displayed by the lucene
> org.apache.lucene.demo.IndexFiles demo, I assume the clock is started after
> the VM has loaded.
> Andi..
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Dmitry Serebrennikov wrote:
>>Andi Vajda wrote:
>>>I got the latest lucene to compile and run its demo on Linux (redhat 9) and
>>>Mac OS X Panther 10.3.1 using gcc 3.3.2's gcj, compiling to native
>>>The demo seems to run. I didn't run the unittests since I didn't attempt to
>>>compile junit with gcj yet.
>>>Performance seems way faster than the java VM version but somewhat slower than
>>>clucene's C++ port of lucene, indexing a small set of files. I say somewhat as
>>>my set is not that large and my measurements not very thorough, but here are
>>>some numbers for indexing 116k of text in 14 files, as measured on a Powerbook
>>>1Ghz/1GB running Mac OS X Panther 10.3.1:
>>> lucene 1.3 RC3 with java 1.4.1: 1169 ms
>>> lucene 1.3 RC3 with gcj       :  467 ms
>>> clucene 0.8.9                 :  365 ms
>>This is very interesting! I didn't even know about the clucene project,
>>but now I'll definetely have to take a look! I was beginning to think
>>about doing this myself, but if the code already exists - so much the
>>better. gcj sounds great too.
>>Are these times for pure indexing, or is this a time for the program to
>>run. If so, the extra 1 second could just be due to the VM startup
>>time... The numbers would be much less impressive if that was the case.
>>Also, if you have numbers for a larger dataset, please post them here. I
>>am very interested in these results, and I think many others might be also.
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message