Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 20903 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2005 23:39:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Jun 2005 23:39:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 81052 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jun 2005 23:39:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 81013 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jun 2005 23:39:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 80998 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jun 2005 23:39:42 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from ehatchersolutions.com (HELO ehatchersolutions.com) (69.55.225.129) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:39:41 -0700 Received: by ehatchersolutions.com (Postfix, from userid 504) id C6C1113E200A; Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (va-chrvlle-cad1-bdgrp1-4b-b-169.chvlva.adelphia.net [68.169.41.169]) by ehatchersolutions.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0C513E2007 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) In-Reply-To: <200506020007.17423@danielnaber.de> References: <20050517024134.68154.qmail@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200506020007.17423@danielnaber.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Erik Hatcher Subject: Re: Lucene vs. Ruby/Odeum Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19:39:27 -0400 To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on javelina X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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