lucene-lucene-net-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Granroth, Neal V." <neal.granr...@thermofisher.com>
Subject RE: Lucene Java Vs .Net
Date Thu, 14 May 2009 13:05:15 GMT
It would also be interesting to compare Java vs. Mono performance on Linux.

When constructing the index it might be good to have several different document sources. 
Performance of an index with a relatively small number of shared terms might be significantly
different than an index with a very large number of shared terms.  The presence of "stored"
but not indexed document fields should also be considered.

When querying the index, don't forget numeric range clauses and query filters.

When designing the test code it might also be helpful to have a way to distinguish between
general Java vs. .NET performance differences and the performance differences due specifically
to Lucene.


-- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Shashi Kant [mailto:shashi.mit@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:53 PM
To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene Java Vs .Net

I am running all tests on the same box - a Windows workstation.

Granted the comparison might not quite be apples vs apples in a true
scientific sense, at least it would be slightly more scientific  than
some of the anecdotal information shared by some here.

so perhaps green apples vs red apples :-)


2009/5/13 Digy <digydigy@gmail.com>:
> I think, at first,  it is just a simple comparison of results of the same
> code with the same index on the same hardware.
>
> After then, some optimizations specific to to .Net or Java (or more complex
> test cases) can be thought.
>
> DIGY.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Carrico [mailto:Todd.Carrico@match.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:57 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene Java Vs .Net
>
> My issue with this type of comparison is the difference in hardware.  Small
> differences can make a big impact.
>
> What are you doing to make sure this is apples to apples as far as hardware
> goes?
>
> tc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:48 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene Java Vs .Net
>
> Hi Shashi
>
> general@lucene.apache.org  could  be a good place to discuss your tests and
> results.
> I eagerly wait your results.
>
> DIGY
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shashi Kant [mailto:shashi.mit@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:21 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene Java Vs .Net
>
> Hi, I am bumping up this thread to see if there are any further inputs
> on this. I was planning on running a benchmarking test for .NET vs
> Java for both Indexing & Querying (single field, multi field, span
> etc.), and would be happy to share my results. I would be using the
> PubMed corpus of biomedical literature and running indexing on a few
> million articles.
>
> I would be interested to see if others are running on other corpora,
> sharing ideas would be very helpful IMHO.
>
> Regards,
> Shashi
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Matt Honeycutt <mbhoneycutt@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I haven't compared Lucene to Lucene.NET, but I have seen huge performance
>> improvements in Weka on .NET vs. Java.  Taking the Java jar files and
> using
>> IKVM.NET to produce a .NET assembly resulted in a huge performance
>> improvement.  I would fully expect Lucene.NET to hold a similar
> performance
>> advantage over its Java equivalent.
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Granroth, Neal V. <
>> neal.granroth@thermofisher.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd also be interested in hearing about performance differences between
> the
>>> two.  Out of idle curiosity I run a few very basic trials.  I expected
> there
>>> to be no noticeable difference, but was surprised to find the .NET
>>> application ran 3x faster than the Java equivalent.
>>>
>>> -- Neal
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: codingvista@googlemail.com [mailto:codingvista@googlemail.com] On
>>> Behalf Of Wayne Douglas
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:46 AM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org; anmum@online.de
>>> Subject: Re: Lucene Java Vs .Net
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any benchmark data on the performance of these two -
>>> purely
>>> out of interest :)
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Andreas Mummenhoff <anmum@online.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > yes,
>>> > Lucene.Net is a class-per-class, API-per-API and algorithmatic port of
>>> the
>>> > Java Version. The release numbers are the same, so Java Lucene 2.3.1 ~=
>>> > Lucene.Net 2.3.1
>>> > And the consequence of this is index compatibility, so you can search
> and
>>> > fill a Lucene.Net index with Java Lucene and the other way round.
>>> >
>>> > Andreas
>>> >
>>> > -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
>>> > Von: MBVV.Satish [mailto:mbvvsatish@yahoo.co.in]
>>> > Gesendet: Montag, 4. Mai 2009 22:47
>>> > An: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
>>> > Betreff: Lucene Java Vs .Net
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >  We are currently using Java based Lucene in one of our products. We
> have
>>> a
>>> > product in Microsoft .Net where we intend to use Lucene.Net.
>>> > My question is....
>>> > 1.) Is Lucene.Net has all the features of Java version? or is there any
>>> > specific limitation to .Net version?
>>> > 2.) Is Lucene.Net is class-per-class, API-per-API and algorithmatic
>  port
>>> > of Java Version? if so are the releases comparable by release numbers
>>> i.e.,
>>> > .Net 2.3 with Java 2.3?
>>> > 3.) Is it possible to use the same Lucene indexes in Java Version as
> well
>>> > as .Net Version?
>>> >
>>> >  Please answer my above questions so that it will be helpful in
> deciding
>>> on
>>> > the use of Lucene .Net.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> > Satish
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >      Now surf faster and smarter ! Check out the new Firefox 3 - Yahoo!
>>> > Edition http://downloads.yahoo.com/in/firefox/?fr=om_email_firefox
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> w://
>>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message