Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-uima-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-uima-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 48F7510525 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:17:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 24804 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2014 16:17:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-uima-user-archive@uima.apache.org Received: (qmail 24697 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2014 16:17:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@uima.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@uima.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@uima.apache.org Received: (qmail 24689 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jan 2014 16:17:36 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:17:36 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [132.187.3.35] (HELO mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de) (132.187.3.35) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:17:29 +0000 Received: from virusscan-slb.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay-slb.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F0179E6D for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:17:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virusscan-slb.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3601452BB for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:17:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at uni-wuerzburg.de Received: from mailmaster.uni-wuerzburg.de ([10.101.19.1]) by localhost (vmail001.slb.uni-wuerzburg.de [10.101.19.141]) (amavisd-new, port 10225) with ESMTP id rggs2Ygufjfn for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:17:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [132.187.15.93] (win6093.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.15.93]) by mailmaster.uni-wuerzburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDEA6D282 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:17:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52D6B483.2020102@uni-wuerzburg.de> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:17:07 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Peter_Kl=FCgl?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: user@uima.apache.org Subject: JCAS Annotations vs CAS Annotations - Performance X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, does anyone have some experience on the performance difference of CAS annotations and JCAS annotations in real world applications? I created a trivial testbench that indicates that CAS annotations are bit faster, but I not sure if that holds for real applications. Best, Peter