[pylucene-dev] index compatibility between jcc and gcj

[Andi Vajda]

On Feb 13, 2008, at 5:03, "Alexandre Fiori" <fiorix at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> nice, andi !
>
> it looks like im on the right way then, because my production system  
> is based on pylucene-jcc and only on process open the index for  
> reading/searching (as recommended on lucene's wiki).
> i tought it could be faster with gcj, but now i believe jcc version  
> is better. is that right?
> what's going to happen with gcj version? is it going to die?

As announced with the PyLucene 2.3.0 release, gcj-pylucene is now  
deprecated. I have yet to update the PyLucene homepage about this.

Andi..

>
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 5:28 AM, Andi Vajda <vajda at osafoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Alexandre Fiori wrote:
>
> > i would like to know if it's possible to generate an index with  
> pylucene-jcc
> > in such a way that it's compatible with pylucene-gcj.
> > that's because i figured out that pylucene-jcc is much faster  
> creating the
> > index, but slower searching.
> >
> > with the same data i generated two indexes, one using pylucene-jcc  
> and
> > another using pylucene-gcj.
> > jcc can add 100.000 documents in ~56s, while gcj do the same in  
> ~4m15s.
> > but searching is different. jcc takes ~0.718s while gcj takes only
> > 0.069sfor the same query.
> >
> > also, i've found that jcc version of pylucene can read/search  
> indexes
> > created with gcj version, but not the opposite.
> > i would like to know if it's possible generate indexes faster with  
> gcj, or,
> > if it's possible to generate it by using jcc version and read/ 
> search with
> > gcj version.
>
> If you're using the same versions of the underlying Java Lucene  
> software to
> build either jcc- or gcj-PyLucene I expect their indexes to be fully
> compatible. It is my understanding that newer Lucene versions are  
> capable of
> reading older Lucene indexes but not the other way around.
>
> The timing differences you're seeing are most likely due to the fact  
> that a
> long running task, such as index creation, gives the Java VM  
> (embedded in
> jcc-PyLucene) a better chance to compile the bytecode. gcj-PyLucene is
> faster quicker but is eventually passed by jcc-PyLucene once the  
> embedded
> JVM has had a chance to compile the bytecode. If you were to run a  
> sizeable
> bunch of search queries in both jcc-PyLucene and gcj-PyLucene, I'm  
> not sure
> which one would come out ahead. I suspect that jcc-PyLucene might  
> actually.
>
> Andi..
> _______________________________________________
> pylucene-dev mailing list
> pylucene-dev at osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/pylucene-dev
>
>
>
> -- 
> Ship ahoy! Hast seen the While Whale?
>  - Melville's Captain Ahab
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/pylucene-dev/attachments/20080213/515d9495/attachment-0001.htm