These are preliminary results of our stressor; looks quite promising as I haven't yet looked into profiling / tuning: Stock Lucene RAMDirectory Searches: 14.799.852 Writes: 195.935 Stock Lucene FSDirectory (Memory mapping on SSD) Searches: 9.628.593 Writes: 105.930 Our custom Infinispan Directory (LOCAL) Searches: 17.815.874 Writes: 184.140 Figures represent operations performed in 15 minutes on a relatively small index. Cheers, Sanne _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

No I'm not comparing with Lucene 3.6 now with this configuration. It is well known that Lucene 4 is significantly faster than Lucene 3, so that would be unfair. What is interesting is that when comparing our implementations vs. the Apache stock ones while using Lucene 3 we where "very close", often a bit faster but not too exciting. Now comparing with the stock ones using Lucene 4 it seems we're getting into a better position... and I didn't even profile it, this is the first run after finishing coding the functional requirements. Still these figures are produced by a stress test whose primary purpose is to verify consistency and no-corruptions under stress.. I happened to add some metrics for fun, but to provide realistic figures one should run Lucene's own bench suite.. I'll do that next week. @Manik yes I'm not using a CacheStore, I would presume the same. This is why I've created the Lucene-specific CacheLoader, maybe I should complete the job and make it a CacheStore. Sanne On 29 January 2013 13:14, Tristan Tarrant <ttarrant(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Have you got numbers comparing against Lucene 3.6 ? > > Tristan > > On 01/29/2013 12:53 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >> These are preliminary results of our stressor; looks quite promising >> as I haven't yet looked into profiling / tuning: >> >> Stock Lucene RAMDirectory >> Searches: 14.799.852 >> Writes: 195.935 >> >> Stock Lucene FSDirectory (Memory mapping on SSD) >> Searches: 9.628.593 >> Writes: 105.930 >> >> Our custom Infinispan Directory (LOCAL) >> Searches: 17.815.874 >> Writes: 184.140 >> >> Figures represent operations performed in 15 minutes on a relatively >> small index. >> >> Cheers, >> Sanne >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

@Manik yes I'm not using a CacheStore, I would presume the same. This is why I've created the Lucene-specific CacheLoader, maybe I should complete the job and make it a CacheStore.