Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 34767 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2006 17:05:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Apr 2006 17:05:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 83847 invoked by uid 500); 7 Apr 2006 17:05:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 83805 invoked by uid 500); 7 Apr 2006 17:05:48 -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 83794 invoked by uid 99); 7 Apr 2006 17:05:48 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:05:48 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [207.115.57.43] (HELO ylpvm12.prodigy.net) (207.115.57.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:05:47 -0700 Received: from pimout7-ext.prodigy.net (pimout7-int.prodigy.net [207.115.4.147]) by ylpvm12.prodigy.net (8.12.10 outbound/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k37H5JbL013736 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2006 13:05:19 -0400 X-ORBL: [69.228.204.183] Received: from [192.168.168.15] (adsl-69-228-204-183.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [69.228.204.183]) by pimout7-ext.prodigy.net (8.13.4 outbound domainkey aix/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k37H5Khe044026; Fri, 7 Apr 2006 13:05:23 -0400 Message-ID: <44369BCF.6090502@apache.org> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:05:19 -0700 From: Doug Cutting User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Benchmarking results References: <20060404172308.30101.qmail@web32804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <034DBACC-C7EA-42A1-A1E7-1601E4E28748@rectangular.com> In-Reply-To: <034DBACC-C7EA-42A1-A1E7-1601E4E28748@rectangular.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Marvin Humphrey wrote: > However, having established that KinoSearch > is in Lucene's league with regards to indexing speed, I'm not worried > about absolute numbers, and the new benchmarker interface is slightly > more stable, allowing more accurate comparative analysis of algorithmic > efficiency. The trends are still apparent: KinoSearch gains ground > when there's stored and vectorized content. Another axis that I don't think you're yet measuring is how things change as the index grows. What happens with 10k, 100k and 1M and 10M documents? There are typically knees in search engine performance curves when indexes get substantially larger than RAM, and behaviour on either side of the knee may differ with different indexing strategies. Doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org