I'm not in love with the dependency idea, though it's not that big of a deal for me. However, I think you will want to get some of the performance patched (e.g. LUCENE-843) in first, so you can compare the latest and greatest version of Lucene with your Javalutionized version. From what I gather from Mike's emails, he is doing a lot of object and array sharing and reusing in order to minimize object creation, memory allocation, and thus create less work for the garbage collector.
My 2.... pick a currency, say Levs. Otis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share ----- Original Message ---- From: Jean-Philippe Robichaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:19:51 PM Subject: RE: Lucene and Javolution: A good mix ? Yes, I believe enough in this approach to try it. I'm already starting to play with it. I took the current trunk and I'm starting to play with it. That begin said, I'm quite busy right now so I can't promise any steady progress. Also, I won't apply patches that are already in JIRA, so the numbers I'll get won't be the 'up-to-date" ones. I understand that before this idea gets any traction, we must have an idea of how much this could help. But before going deep with this work, I wanted to know if Lucene developers have any interest in this kind of work. If the gurus dislike the idea of adding a dependency to Lucene (which is not the case for others Apache projects!), then I won't spend too much time on this. Jp -----Original Message----- From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:01 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Lucene and Javolution: A good mix ? What Mike said. Without seeing the Javalutionized Lucene in action we won't get very far. jean-Philippe, are you interested in making the changes to Lucene and showing the performance improvement? Note that you can use the super-nice and easy to use contrib/benchmark to compare the "vanilla Lucene" and the "Javalutionized Lucene". Otis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share ----- Original Message ---- From: Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:58:38 PM Subject: Re: Lucene and Javolution: A good mix ? On 4/4/07, Jean-Philippe Robichaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand your concerns! > > I was a little skeptical at the beginning. But even with the 1.5 jvm, > the improvements still holds. > > Lucene creates a lots of "garbage" (strings, tokens, ...) either at > index time or query time. While the new garbage collector strategies did > seriously improve since java 1.4, the gains are still there as the > object "creation" is also a cost that javolution easily saves us from. I think the best approach at convincing people would be to produce a patch that implements some of the suggested changes, and benchmark it. As it stands, the positives are all hypothetical and the negatives rather tangible. -MIke --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
