Yes, my laptop with 4 cores and one disk.

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Till Westmann <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nice improvement. Is this still on your laptop with 4 cores and one disk?
> If so, it'd mean that we're beating the free version of Saxon on some
> queries in single node performance.
>
> Sounds like a nice statement :)
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Eldon Carman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The new numbers show the performance on 4 partitions with 4 cores is as
> > good or better than saxon. The two filter queries q00 and q01 are close
> to
> > saxon's performance when running on 2 partitions.
> >
> > Improvement Overview
> > q00 >50%
> > q01 >20%
> > q02 25% to 35%
> > q03 about the same
> >
> > q02 and q03 have issue with one of the rewrite rules that could be
> > affecting their numbers. The improvements include short circuiting for
> > conditional expressions, improved object reuse, child step optimization
> and
> > rewrite rules to remove unnecessary functions.
> >
> > Here are results for the new VXQuery version compared to saxon (Only
> > VXQuery numbers have been updated):
> >
> > Query q00 (500mb)
> > ---------------
> > 2m11.937s Saxon
> > 4m25.269s VXQuery - 1 partition
> > 2m19.062s VXQuery - 2 partitions
> > 1m35.461s VXQuery - 4 partitions
> >
> > Query q01 (500mb)
> > ---------------
> > 2m07.096s Saxon
> > 4m14.810s VXQuery - 1 partition
> > 2m14.814s VXQuery - 2 partitions
> > 1m34.537s VXQuery - 4 partitions
> >
> > Query q02 (500mb)
> > ---------------
> > 2m11.029s Saxon
> > 6m04.867s VXQuery - 1 partition
> > 3m06.819s VXQuery - 2 partitions
> > 2m00.013s VXQuery - 4 partitions
> >
> > Query q03 (500mb)
> > ---------------
> > 1m58.784s Saxon
> > 6m24.056s VXQuery - 1 partition
> > 3m06.804s VXQuery - 2 partitions
> > 2m01.431s VXQuery - 4 partitions
> >
> > Numbers for January 30 can be found here:
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-vxquery-dev/201401.mbox/%3CCAO1XyR6eynnPVXTpXKdPJ%2BeXKMuhHApG8bd1suNqS4iQ9%3DCHHQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>

Reply via email to