[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2167?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Steven Rowe updated LUCENE-2167:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-2167.benchmark.patch
This patch contains the benchmarking implementation I've been using. I'm
pretty sure we don't want this stuff in Lucene, so I'm including it here only
for reproducibility by others. I have hardcoded absolute paths to the ICU4J
jar and the contrib/icu jar in the script I use to run the benchmark
({{lucene/contrib/benchmark/scripts/compare.uax29.analyzers.sh}}), so if
anybody tries to run this stuff, they will have to first modify that script.
On #lucene, Robert suggested comparing the performance of the straight ICU4J
RBBI against UAX29Tokenizer, so I took his ICUTokenizer and associated classes,
stripped out the script-detection logic, and made something I named
RBBITokenizer, which is included in this patch.
To run the benchmark, you have to first run "ant jar" in {{lucene/}} to produce
the lucene core jar, and then again in {{lucene/contrib/icu/}}. Then in
{{contrib/benchmark/}}, run {{scripts/compare.uax29.analyzers.sh}}.
Here are the results on my machine (Sun JDK 1.6.0_13; Windows Vista/Cygwin;
best of five):
||Operation||recsPerRun||rec/s||elapsedSec||
|ICUTokenizer|1268451|548,638.00|2.31|
|RBBITokenizer|1268451|568,047.94|2.23|
|StandardTokenizer|1262799|644,614.06|1.96|
|UAX29Tokenizer|1268451|640,631.81|1.98|
> Implement StandardTokenizer with the UAX#29 Standard
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2167
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2167
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: contrib/analyzers
> Affects Versions: 3.1
> Reporter: Shyamal Prasad
> Assignee: Steven Rowe
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-2167.benchmark.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch
>
> Original Estimate: 0.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0.5h
>
> It would be really nice for StandardTokenizer to adhere straight to the
> standard as much as we can with jflex. Then its name would actually make
> sense.
> Such a transition would involve renaming the old StandardTokenizer to
> EuropeanTokenizer, as its javadoc claims:
> bq. This should be a good tokenizer for most European-language documents
> The new StandardTokenizer could then say
> bq. This should be a good tokenizer for most languages.
> All the english/euro-centric stuff like the acronym/company/apostrophe stuff
> can stay with that EuropeanTokenizer, and it could be used by the european
> analyzers.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
