"Marvin Humphrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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>
OK glad to hear that :) I *think* I don't have such bugs. > (: 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. :) Hrm. It would be nice to have hard comparison of the Lucene, KS (and Ferret and others?). > ... 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. Wow, that's an awesome speedup! So KS is faster than Lucene today? > 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. ;) Exactly! I very carefully didn't look closely at how KS does indexing. I did read your posts on this list and did read the Wiki page and I think a few other pages describing KS's merge model but stopped there. We can compare our approaches in detail at some point and then cross-fertilize :) Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
