19 Aug
2008
19 Aug
'08
3:12 p.m.
If I dare add my grain of salt, a web-page documenting this test can
help a lot (maybe it's on the jira issue?). Because depending on the
queries, you can make big speed differences.
I certainly agree with Ludovic's point of view below, I think this is
where Lucene gets correctly.
Also, btw, Anca, please make sure your file-system is a local-file-
system, for Lucene, at least, this is a performance factor of 2 at
writing at least.
paul
Le 19-août-08 à 14:30, Ludovic Dubost a écrit :
Hi Anca,
Great analysis. This gives a lot of good information to make the right
choice for XWiki Watch.
I suggest we run with 120000 articles to see the trend of query time
for
all three methods.
You should run the tests again with indexes on feed_feedentry because
this can bring good improvements.
The optimized query for clicking on "All" seems to be still slow (it
could be bad with more data).
We should also test a text search and a tag or keyword search
Ludovic
Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
I've summarized Anca's findings below (great testing btw ;-) , I
bet we
should do this more often) :
[snip]
| Standard SQL | Lucene | Optimized SQL | Winner
initial loading of the articles, in a newly started server | 30-40
seconds
| up to 20 (15-16) | around 10 | OSQL
initial load of the interface, in a non-newly started server | ~15
seconds |
~4-5 on average (but can go up to 10) | 7 | Lucene
click on the All group | around 7-8-9 seconds | 1 second | 5 on
average,
from 3 to 7 | Lucene
click on a feed with 1023 articles | 3 seconds | from under a
second to a
couple seconds | under a second (0.7-0.8) | OSQL
pagination navigation | 2-3 seconds | a second on average | 2-3 on
average |
Lucene
As we can see Lucene still has the edge a majority of times, but
Optimized
SQL comes close in most cases. As far as my understanding of this
issue
goes, I'd advise going for SQL optimization instead of Lucene for the
following reasons :
- It is better suited to handle the highly structured data coming
from
XWiki Watch
- It already offers a good performance and could deliver even
more if
fully implemented
- It goes in the right way in terms of making the XWiki Watch
distribution on par with other XWiki products (such as XWS & XEM)
in terms
of code organization (client-side / server-side)
- The Lucene indexing engine integration with XWiki is still
error-prone
- Lucene doesn't work for real-time actions that are used a lot
in XWiki
Watch
Which is why, on the whole, SQL Optimization seems better than
Lucene to me.
Please tell me if I've missed something.
Guillaume
--
Ludovic Dubost
Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/
XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com
Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs