lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bogdan Litescu <bogdan.lite...@avatar-soft.ro>
Subject Re: Lucene.net vs Lucene with IKVM
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:23:46 GMT
Microsoft has own search engines to sell.

We have a search engine built on top of Lucene for DNN. DNN is most popular
open source .NET CMS. It was actually a project started by Microsoft and
donated to the community more than 10 years ago. Same thing, Microsoft
didn't really invest anything in DNN since then. They have Sharepoint to
push to their clients.


On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
wrote:

> I'm already in contact with them. Not as easy as you'd think...
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Frank Yu <frank.yu@farpoint.com> wrote:
>
> > I am sure that Microsoft would like to see Lucene.NET version running.
> > Maybe they can sponsor the effort. Just a thought.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Frank Yu
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elad Margalit [mailto:eladmarg@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 6:34 AM
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Cc: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.net vs Lucene with IKVM
> >
> > Totally Agree with Syn-Hershko,
> >
> > Currently, I'm using the ikvm ported version, i can tell for sure, there
> > is at least 20% penalty in performance.
> >
> > when you're using the ivkm version, the JIT avoid many optimizations, in
> > the future, we'll be able to do much more optimizations - async/await,
> SIMD
> > instructions when RyuJIT is out in few month, bcl collections, stackalloc
> > for small inline arrays and many other stuff.
> > we'll also be able to monitor the critical performance paths in tools
> such
> > as ants profiler or dotTrace, and make lucene even more faster.
> >
> > i have no doubt after the porting will be done, it will be about 15-20%
> > faster than the native java version.
> >
> > its a main goal for all of us to contribute to this port
> >
> > Thank you all guys
> >
> > Cheers,
> > E
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It robs us of many optimization opportunities on the CLR. Java Lucene
> > > compiled using IKVM will not perform as well as a native port. Think
> > > async/await, BCL data structures, different GC considerations (LOH for
> > > example), etc. There's also the issue of supporting PCL, Mono, Mobile
> > > and Azure natively. Just to name a few.
> > >
> > > I've had a chat with the lead developer of IKVM and promised to run an
> > > IKVM version head to head with the native port once we are done.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Omri Suissa <omri.suissa@diffdoof.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > It looks like it takes a lot of time to manually port Lucene to .net
> > > (still
> > > > in version 3), why not using ikvm to port (at least as a base line
> > > > and improve from there)?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What are the disadvantages of ikvm in this case?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Omri
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 


<http://www.dnnsharp.com/>
Bogdan Litescu
www.dnnsharp.com
www.facebook.com/DnnSharp

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message