Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
From: "Uwe Schindler" <uwe@thetaphi.de>
To: <java-user@lucene.apache.org>
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> <4AB110E3.6040004@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: lucene 2.9.0RC4 slower than 2.4.1?
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:33:49 +0200
Message-ID: <C7281D64AA0F464394A823C942685090@VEGA>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <4AB110E3.6040004@gmail.com>
Thread-Index: Aco26hU8IoczF6O7S4qcYkqua3yJtwAATMDQ

How should we proceed? Stop the final artifact build and voting or proceed
with the release of 2.9? We waited so long and for most people it is faster
than slower!

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:23 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: lucene 2.9.0RC4 slower than 2.4.1?
> 
> 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


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