I wouldn't get too excited over this. Once again, it does not seem
the evaluator understands the nature of GC based systems, and the
memory statistics are quite out of whack. But it is hard to tell
because there is no data on how memory consumption was actually
measured.
A far better way of measuring memory consumption is to cap the
process at different levels (max ram sizes), and compare the
performance at each level.
There is also fact that a process takes memory from disk cache, and
visa versa, that heavily affects search performance, etc.
Since there is no detailed data (that I could find) about system
configuration, etc. the results are highly suspect.
There is also no mention of performance on multi-processor systems.
Some systems (like Lucene) pay a penalty to support multi-processing
(both in Java and Lucene), and only realize this benefit when
operating in a multi-processor environment.
Based on the shear speed of XMLSearch and Zettair those seem likely
candidates to inspect their design.
On Dec 7, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Was wondering if people have seen http://wrg.upf.edu/WRG/dctos/
Middleton-Baeza.pdf
Has some interesting comparisons. Obviously, the comparison of
Lucene indexing is done w/ 1.9 so it probably needs to be done
again. Just wondering if people see any opportunities to improve
Lucene from it. I am going to try and contact the authors to see
if I can get what there setup values were (mergeFactor, Analyzer,
etc.) as I think it would be interesting to run the tests again on
2.3.
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]