lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Lucene.net vs Lucene with IKVM
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:14:17 GMT
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
> > >
> >
>
>
>

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