On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Hans Merkl <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally I am willing to trade some performance for always being up to > date with the latest Java releases and also being able to use other Java > code. Although as far as I have seen most people say it's at the same speed > or even slightly faster than the .NET version. > > I personally would be more likely to contribute to IKVM if there are any > issues since it would also benefit other Java code I use like TIKA. I wonder > if anybody has ever tried Lucene with IKVM in a heavy load production > environment. I use it in a one thread per index desktop app and wouldn't > notice if there were any issues under heavy load. >
>From the java camp, not too long ago i took lucene's trunk (to be 4.0) and ran the unit test suite with IKVM... As someone who has tested alternative Java implementations with lucene (e.g. Jrockit, IBM's J9, Harmony), I would only call the results very impressive. In fact I only had one test failure, in TestIndexWriterExceptions, which in my opinion isn't serious at all, its to test this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1214 I think its likely due to the way that IKVM optimizes exceptions[1], and our unit test does wierd things with examining stacktraces and such to simulate the condition... in other words not a real problem. I would suggest benchmarking! [1] http://weblog.ikvm.net/PermaLink.aspx?guid=388b2a6d-e7b2-4ffa-86e7-450c87e6178f
