lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Omri Suissa <omri.sui...@diffdoof.com>
Subject Re: Lucene.net vs Lucene with IKVM
Date Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:50:06 GMT
Hi all,
Thanks for the answers.

Omri

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I had similar thoughts Rob - ill reach out to them to make sure we follow
> appropriate guidelines.
>
> Ill report back when I have more
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Rob Vesse<mailto:rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>
> Sent: ‎2/‎5/‎2015 10:13 AM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org<mailto:dev@lucenenet.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Lucene.net vs Lucene with IKVM
>
> Worth noting that you probably need to be careful about how you word any
> campaign you launch.  People participate at Apache as individuals (whether
> on paid time or not) so you need to make sure that any campaign didn't
> give the impression that you're allowing people to "pay to play" and get
> favoured treatment in any sense
>
> I would recommend that you check with ASF brand management (either
> trademarks@a.o or vp-brand@a.o both of which are private lists/addresses)
> to check they aren't going to have any problem with you doing this and get
> guidance on what you can and can't say in any crowd funding proposal.
>
> Rob
>
> On 05/02/2015 09:37, "Itamar Syn-Hershko" <itamar@code972.com> wrote:
>
> >Microsoft are actually using Lucene.NET in at least 3 projects, one of
> >them
> >contributed 2 people to help us get the tests green.
> >
> >That's all good input, thanks - but we did hijack a different thread :)
> >
> >Anyway, looks like I'll be headed the crowd-funding route, but its going
> >to
> >take a while to figure out. If any big sponsors step up before then -
> >that'll be great.
> >
> >--
> >
> >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 7:30 PM, Alberto León <leontiscar@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps you should to talk with Sebastien Ros who is hired by Microsoft
> >>to
> >> do Orchard CMS
> >>
> >> As I remember Orchard CMS uses Lucene .Net
> >>
> >> The current asp.net blogs are running on top of Orchard CMS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2015-02-05 18:23 GMT+01:00 Bogdan Litescu
> >><bogdan.litescu@avatar-soft.ro>:
> >>
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://es.linkedin.com/in/albertoleontiscar/en
> >> https://twitter.com/AlbertCSharpMan
> >> http://stackoverflow.com/users/690958/alberto-leon
> >>
>
>
>
>
>

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