lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jean-Philippe Robichaud" <Jean-Philippe.Robich...@nuance.com>
Subject RE: Lucene and Javolution: A good mix ?
Date Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:19:51 GMT
Yes, I believe enough in this approach to try it.  I'm already starting
to play with it.  I took the current trunk and I'm starting to play with
it.  That begin said, I'm quite busy right now so I can't promise any
steady progress.  Also, I won't apply patches that are already in JIRA,
so the numbers I'll get won't be the 'up-to-date" ones.

I understand that before this idea gets any traction, we must have an
idea of how much this could help.  But before going deep with this work,
I wanted to know if Lucene developers have any interest in this kind of
work.  If the gurus dislike the idea of adding a dependency to Lucene
(which is not the case for others Apache projects!), then I won't spend
too much time on this.

Jp

-----Original Message-----
From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:otis_gospodnetic@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:01 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Javolution: A good mix ?

What Mike said.  Without seeing the Javalutionized Lucene in action we
won't get very far.
jean-Philippe, are you interested in making the changes to Lucene and
showing the performance improvement?
Note that you can use the super-nice and easy to use contrib/benchmark
to compare the "vanilla Lucene" and the "Javalutionized Lucene".


Otis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/  -  Tag  -  Search  -  Share

----- Original Message ----
From: Mike Klaas <mike.klaas@gmail.com>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:58:38 PM
Subject: Re: Lucene and Javolution: A good mix ?

On 4/4/07, Jean-Philippe Robichaud <Jean-Philippe.Robichaud@nuance.com>
wrote:
> I understand your concerns!
>
> I was a little skeptical at the beginning.  But even with the 1.5 jvm,
> the improvements still holds.
>
> Lucene creates a lots of "garbage" (strings, tokens, ...) either at
> index time or query time. While the new garbage collector strategies
did
> seriously improve since java 1.4, the gains are still there as the
> object "creation" is also a cost that javolution easily saves us from.

I think the best approach at convincing people would be to produce a
patch that implements some of the suggested changes, and benchmark it.
 As it stands, the positives are all hypothetical and the negatives
rather tangible.

-MIke

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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