Hi, That's a very good point, I will test with a more realistic text (like a novel).
Thanks very much for helps, Lisheng -----Original Message----- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 3:42 AM To: Lucene Users Subject: Re: lucene 4.3 seems to be much slower in indexing than lucene 3.6? It's also possible 4.x is slower than 3.x for purely random terms: the terms dictionary is completely different. But purely random terms is a poor test since it doesn't match the reality of a typical search index. Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Zhang, Lisheng <lisheng.zh...@broadvision.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I did some basic performance testing, just use random number to generate > text for indexing, > below I attached source java code. The command I used are: > > java TestReal43 index -docCount 500 -start 1 -optimize true -luceneDir mmap > java TestReal36 index -docCount 500 -start 1 -optimize true -luceneDir mmap > > The difference is NOT in optimization, I changed directory within (Simple, > MMap, NIOFS), > it does not make much difference, 43 is about 30~40% slower. I conducted > test in Linux: > > Linux ec2usevmsstgamq 3.2.0-49-virtual #75-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jun 18 17:59:38 > UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > Thanks very much for helps, Lisheng > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
