These are preliminary results of our stressor; looks quite promising
as I haven't yet looked into profiling / tuning:
Stock Lucene RAMDirectory
Searches: 14.799.852
Writes: 195.935
Stock Lucene FSDirectory (Memory mapping on SSD)
Searches: 9.628.593
Writes: 105.930
Our custom Infinis
Wow. That's impressive. I presume the numbers change quite drastically the
moment we have a cache store configured though?
On 28 Jan 2013, at 23:53, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> These are preliminary results of our stressor; looks quite promising
> as I haven't yet looked into profiling / tuning:
Have you got numbers comparing against Lucene 3.6 ?
Tristan
On 01/29/2013 12:53 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> These are preliminary results of our stressor; looks quite promising
> as I haven't yet looked into profiling / tuning:
>
> Stock Lucene RAMDirectory
> Searches: 14.799.852
> Write
No I'm not comparing with Lucene 3.6 now with this configuration. It
is well known that Lucene 4 is significantly faster than Lucene 3, so
that would be unfair.
What is interesting is that when comparing our implementations vs. the
Apache stock ones while using Lucene 3 we where "very close", ofte
Very nice, looking forward to the Lucene bench results.
I hope you'll run it with a distributed cache as well!
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> No I'm not comparing with Lucene 3.6 now with this configuration. It
> is well known that Lucene 4 is significantly faster th
On 01/29/2013 02:30 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> @Manik yes I'm not using a CacheStore, I would presume the same. This
> is why I've created the Lucene-specific CacheLoader, maybe I should
> complete the job and make it a CacheStore.
>
>
Oh yeah, a Lucene CacheStore would be nice.
Tristan
On 29 Jan 2013, at 14:08, Dan Berindei wrote:
> Very nice, looking forward to the Lucene bench results.
>
> I hope you'll run it with a distributed cache as well!
+1 :-)
Cheers,
--
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org)
___
infinisp
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> No I'm not comparing with Lucene 3.6 now with this configuration. It
> is well known that Lucene 4 is significantly faster than Lucene 3, so
> that would be unfair.
>
> What is interesting is that when comparing our implementations vs. the
>
