On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
"Yonik Seeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wow, very nice results Mike!
Thanks :) I'm just praying I don't have some sneaky bug making
the results far better than they really are!!
That's possible, but I'm confident that the model you're using is
capable of the gains you're seeing. When I benched KinoSearch a year
ago against Lucene, KS was getting close, but was still a little
behind... <http://www.rectangular.com/kinosearch/benchmarks.html>
(: Ironically, the numbers for Lucene on that page are a little
better than they should be because of a sneaky bug. I would have
made updating the results a priority if they'd gone the other way. :)
... However, Lucene has been tuned by an army of developers over the
years, while KS is young yet and still had many opportunities for
optimization. Current svn trunk for KS is about twice as fast for
indexing as when I did those benchmarking tests.
I look forward to studying your patch in detail at some point to see
what you've done differently. It sounds like you only familiarized
yourself with the high-level details of how KS has been working,
yes? Hopefully, you misunderstood and came up with something better. ;)
Marvin Humphrey
Rectangular Research
http://www.rectangular.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
