[Xapian-discuss] Initial benchmark results quartz and flint
Arjen van der Meijden
acmmailing at tweakers.net
Thu Jun 30 21:28:25 BST 2005
I've now done all three runs. And I verified that the query results from
the non-compacted quartz-database are exactly the same as for the
non-compacted flint-database. Would you like me to verify that the
compacted databases yield the same results as well?
Here are the benchmark runtimes for the various databases:
Non-phrase
Flint 155,574 160,540 161,227
Flint compact 96,569 95,676 97,584
Flint compact -F 94,227 94,620 95,028
Quartz 169,853 161,802 161,397
Quartz cpt -F gz 108,783 110,264 108,911
Quartz cpt -nF gz 109,650 108,199 108,062
Quartz cpt 103,863 103,676 103,718
Quartz cpt 084 gz 108,299 108,221 109,241
Phrase
Flint 2841,680 2826,288 3152,847
Flint compact 3026,939 2582,435 2924,166
Flint compact -F 2623,404 2643,625 2608,039
Quartz 7037,056 6612,721 6407,643
Quartz cpt -F gz 9249,504 8032,758 9598,598
Quartz cpt -nF gz 8090,707 8038,627 8153,904
Quartz cpt 9410,721 8389,753 8059,687
Quartz cpt 084 gz 8100,171 8124,942 8381,013
For the test-setup, see my previous e-mail.
I'm still very puzzled with the results of the various compacted quartz
databases with phrase queries. I'm also a bit clueless as to the huge
differences in times anyway, eventhough the machine was as far as I know
hardly in use. And the disk, with scsi-characteristics, was dedicated to
the benchmark.
Anyway, I think the fuller-compacted flint is a clear winner in
performance. But another conclusion that can be drawn is that trying to
decrease the database size won't always help in performance. Atleast
the results seem to indicate that applying zlib to the smaller tables
tends to do more worse than good.
The test machine has much less memory than our production machine, so in
our production it'll be even less I/O-bound. But I have no real clue how
that would translate in performance with these results.
Best regards,
Arjen
More information about the Xapian-discuss
mailing list