lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <e...@ehatchersolutions.com>
Subject Re: Lucene vs. Ruby/Odeum
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:46:14 GMT
Robert - Please tone it down.  Zed is aware of this thread and  
perhaps even seeing this message.  There is no need to resort to such  
verbiage - Zed and I have been communicating and he is a fan of  
Lucene and has proven in his last entry that Lucene is faster than  
Ruby/Odeum even with the massive memory issue he notes (and has been  
properly informed of what he's doing incorrectly in that situation).

Speaking for myself - I want the most accurate, flexible, and fastest  
search system possible regardless of platform or language.  Certainly  
I want it to be Lucene, but I welcome competition and those that go  
to the extensive effort of collecting data and making studies such as  
Zed has.  The Lucene community can help keep this type of competition  
healthy and positive by educating folks in proper Lucene usage and  
responding in kind regardless of the mistakes, attitudes, or flame- 
bait we may encounter.

     Erik

On Jun 1, 2005, at 7:48 PM, Robert Engels wrote:

> I think I am going to start a new Blog - "Zed's an Idiot".
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:erik@ehatchersolutions.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:39 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene vs. Ruby/Odeum
>
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Daniel Naber wrote:
>
>
>> On Tuesday 17 May 2005 04:41, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.zedshaw.com/projects/ruby_odeum/performance.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Here's a follow up:
>> http://www.zedshaw.com/projects/ruby_odeum/odeum_lucene_part2.html
>>
>> Now the claim is that Lucene is faster than Ruby/Odeum but it  
>> takes 36
>> times more memory. However, I cannot find any information on how
>> exactly
>> Lucene was started. It's no surprise that Java requires much memory
>> and
>> doesn't clean up if it never comes close to the limit set with -Xmx.
>>
>
> I went around several times in e-mail with Zed, the author of this
> comparison after his follow-up.  His paraphrasing of me in there is
> only partially sort of what I said to him.  He's instantiating an
> IndexSearcher inside a tight loop which I told him was a very bad
> thing to do with Lucene and that his loops are so tight that garbage
> collection isn't getting a chance to kick in.  He doesn't currently
> believe some of this from me, and also feels that adjusting the code
> to make Lucene happy is being unfair.
>
> I wish the RubyLucene folks would hurry up and get a port over there
> so that we could compare against Ruby/Odeum "fairly" :)
>
>      Erik
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message