lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nick Lothian" <>
Subject RE: Lucene vs. Ruby/Odeum
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2005 02:00:15 GMT
> On Jun 1, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Daniel Naber wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 May 2005 04:41, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Here's a follow up:
> >
> >
> > Now the claim is that Lucene is faster than Ruby/Odeum but 
> it takes 36 
> > times more memory. However, I cannot find any information on how 
> > exactly Lucene was started. It's no surprise that Java 
> requires much 
> > memory and doesn't clean up if it never comes close to the 
> limit set 
> > with -Xmx.
> I went around several times in e-mail with Zed, the author of 
> this comparison after his follow-up.  His paraphrasing of me 
> in there is only partially sort of what I said to him.  He's 
> instantiating an IndexSearcher inside a tight loop which I 
> told him was a very bad thing to do with Lucene and that his 
> loops are so tight that garbage collection isn't getting a 
> chance to kick in.  He doesn't currently believe some of this 
> from me, and also feels that adjusting the code to make 
> Lucene happy is being unfair.
> I wish the RubyLucene folks would hurry up and get a port 
> over there so that we could compare against Ruby/Odeum "fairly" :)
>      Erik

Since this test appears to be mostly benchmarking JVM startup time, it
might be nice to see some figures comparing Lucene running under GCJ.

Some benchmarks
( show that
GCJ will actually run Lucene faster than Sun's VMs (in some
circumstances), and since a pre-compiled program running under GCJ is a
native binary I wouldn't be surprised to see Java Lucence very
competitive even on the start-up tests.


IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain private or confidential information.
If you think you may not be the intended recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in
error, please contact the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or disclose
its contents to any other party.
This email represents the views of the individual sender, which do not necessarily reflect
those of limited except where the sender expressly states otherwise.
It is your responsibility to scan this email and any files transmitted with it for viruses
or any other defects. limited will not be liable for any loss, damage or consequence caused directly
or indirectly by this email. 

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message