lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alberto León <leontis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene.net vs Lucene with IKVM
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:53:07 GMT
Wikipedia in the past used Lucene.Net in Linux + Mono

The Mono team are today in Xamarin.

To talk to them could be a good option .

Should I talk with the Xamarin's co-founder? I frequently speak with him.



2015-02-05 18:37 GMT+01:00 Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>:

> 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
> >
>



-- 
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