Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of markrmiller@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.218 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=VmzmsrXpPQQH8koV+VAViLq5ky6BIaMnCYk+aepvkY14DZsyyya76V2RrTreJmEnoZ
         vf6Jwc3qu9jrKU09V+QldlYWrDd7RMVzN0l6H58bopANXBXojqRpYMtbWxlmARjCUlVW
         fgneC7SCKE1zfFuraw2wbO1oLuUtSN6OS1h9A=
Message-ID: <4AB110E3.6040004@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:22:59 -0400
From: Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: lucene 2.9.0RC4 slower than 2.4.1?
References: <4AAF96E6.7000909@net-m.de> <4AAF9700.9010509@net-m.de>
 <4AAF98D1.5010207@net-m.de> <4AAF9B03.1040708@gmail.com>
 <4AAF9F17.2030307@net-m.de> <4AAFA0EA.2090300@gmail.com>
 <4AAFA800.5040600@net-m.de> <4AAFAA41.1070103@gmail.com>
 <4AAFAC95.4050307@gmail.com> <4AAFB183.4070006@net-m.de>
 <4AAFB2EB.4020403@gmail.com> <4AAFB62E.10403@gmail.com>
 <4AB0FEDB.50504@net-m.de>
In-Reply-To: <4AB0FEDB.50504@net-m.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

bq. I'll do some profiling now again and let you know the results.

Great - it will be interesting to see the results. My guess, based on
the 2.9 new api profiling, is that your queries may not be agreeing with
some of the changes somehow. Along with the profiling, can you fill us
in on the query types you are using as well? (eg qualities)

And grab invocations if its possible.

-- 
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com


Thomas Becker wrote:
> Tests run on tmpfs:
> config: impl=SeparateFile serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100 bufsize=1024
> poolsize=2 filelen=18920301
> answer=850258539, ms=8090, MB/sec=935.4907787391842
> config: impl=ChannelFile serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100 bufsize=1024
> poolsize=2 filelen=18920301
> answer=850258903, ms=39444, MB/sec=191.8700030422878
> config: impl=ChannelPread serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100 bufsize=1024
> poolsize=2 filelen=18920301
> answer=850258903, ms=8504, MB/sec=889.9483066792098
> config: impl=PooledPread serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100 bufsize=1024
> poolsize=2 filelen=18920301
> answer=850258903, ms=9585, MB/sec=789.5795931142409
>
> I did run some tests now with SimpleFSDirectory and MMapDirectory. Both are
> faster than NIOFS and the response times improved. But it's still slower than 2.4.
>
> I'll do some profiling now again and let you know the results.
>
> Thanks again for all the great support to all who've answered.
>
>
> Mark Miller wrote:
>   
>> Can you run the following test on your RAMDISK?
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/FileReadTest.java
>>
>> I've taken it from the following issue (in which NIOFSDirectory was
>> developed):
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-753
>>
>>     
>
>   


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