Hi,
According to my humble tests, there is no significant improvement
either. NIO has buffer creation time costs compared to other Buffered
IOs. However, a testbed would be ideal for benchmarks.
Murat
Doug Cutting wrote:
Robert Engels wrote:
The most important statistic is that the reading via the local cache, vs.
going to the OS (where the block is cached) is 3x faster (22344 vs.
68578).
With random reads, when the block may not be in the OS cache, it is 8x
faster (72766 vs. 586391).
[ ... ]
This test only demonstrates improvements in the low-level IO layer,
but one
could infer significant performance improvements for common searches
and/or
document retrievals.
That is not an inference I would make. There should be some
improvement, but whether it is significant is not clear to me.
Is there a standard Lucene search performance I could run both with and
without the NioFSDirectory to demonstrate real world performance
improvements? I have some internal tests that I am collating, but I would
rather use a standard test if possible.
No, we don't have a standard benchmark suite. Folks have talked about
developing one, but I don't think one yet exists.
Report what you have. Describe the collection, how it is indexed, how
you've selected queries, and the improvement in average response time.
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
