I agree - best to find the cause before making a decision. There are enough smart people in the wings, I can't imagine this should take us that long. We have solved a good chunk of it already, and have only just begun chunk two.
-- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com Thomas Becker wrote: > I suggest to find the root cause and then decide about the release. Tomorrow I > will spent the whole working day on the issue if no prio1 pops up. > > Sadly I've to leave early today, since I'm moving to a new flat... :( > > Uwe Schindler wrote: > >> How should we proceed? Stop the final artifact build and voting or proceed >> with the release of 2.9? We waited so long and for most people it is faster >> than slower! >> >> ----- >> Uwe Schindler >> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen >> http://www.thetaphi.de >> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:23 PM >>> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: lucene 2.9.0RC4 slower than 2.4.1? >>> >>> bq. I'll do some profiling now again and let you know the results. >>> >>> Great - it will be interesting to see the results. My guess, based on >>> the 2.9 new api profiling, is that your queries may not be agreeing with >>> some of the changes somehow. Along with the profiling, can you fill us >>> in on the query types you are using as well? (eg qualities) >>> >>> And grab invocations if its possible. >>> >>> -- >>> - Mark >>> >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com >>> >>> >>> >>> Thomas Becker wrote: >>> >>>> Tests run on tmpfs: >>>> config: impl=SeparateFile serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100 >>>> >>> bufsize=1024 >>> >>>> poolsize=2 filelen=18920301 >>>> answer=850258539, ms=8090, MB/sec=935.4907787391842 >>>> config: impl=ChannelFile serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100 >>>> >>> bufsize=1024 >>> >>>> poolsize=2 filelen=18920301 >>>> answer=850258903, ms=39444, MB/sec=191.8700030422878 >>>> config: impl=ChannelPread serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100 >>>> >>> bufsize=1024 >>> >>>> poolsize=2 filelen=18920301 >>>> answer=850258903, ms=8504, MB/sec=889.9483066792098 >>>> config: impl=PooledPread serial=false nThreads=4 iterations=100 >>>> >>> bufsize=1024 >>> >>>> poolsize=2 filelen=18920301 >>>> answer=850258903, ms=9585, MB/sec=789.5795931142409 >>>> >>>> I did run some tests now with SimpleFSDirectory and MMapDirectory. Both >>>> >>> are >>> >>>> faster than NIOFS and the response times improved. But it's still slower >>>> >>> than 2.4. >>> >>>> I'll do some profiling now again and let you know the results. >>>> >>>> Thanks again for all the great support to all who've answered. >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark Miller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Can you run the following test on your RAMDISK? >>>>> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/FileReadTest.java >>>>> >>>>> I've taken it from the following issue (in which NIOFSDirectory was >>>>> developed): >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-753 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
