You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucy.apache.org by Yen-Ju Chen <yj...@gmail.com> on 2006/06/20 03:07:54 UTC
Objective-C port
I just heard of Lucy from lucene maillist.
We have an objective-c port of Apache Lucene in Etoile project
(www.etoile-project.org).
It works for Cocoa on mac and GNUstep on Unix.
It is basically a class-to-class port and pass most of the unit tests.
Unfortunately, it suffers the same issue of most of other ports.
So I am glad to hear Lucy and hope it will reduce the overhead of our
objective-c port.
Have fun.
Yen-Ju
Re: Objective-C port
Posted by Yen-Ju Chen <yj...@gmail.com>.
On 6/19/06, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Yen-Ju Chen wrote:
[snip]
>
> > As for the performance, objc port will definitely faster than Ruby
> > and Python
> > with the same C engine, and should be faster than Apache Lucene
> > because of Java,
>
> I don't think comparative performance of the various bindings will
> drive anybody's choice as to which they'd deploy. They'll be within
> shouting distance of each other (unlike KinoSearch and Plucene, which
> are separated by more than an order of magnitude). If I had to pick
> a horse, presumably the eventual winner would be a C version powered
> by APR (should such a thing come into existence). It's not going to
> matter. If you're developing in Ruby, you're not going to add ObjC
> to your environment to pick up that last few percent. Just throw
> some hardware at the problem, that's cheaper!
I agree with you that people won't pick up a language simply because
it is faster.
It is just my expectation of an objective-c port should behave
based on my little knowledge of the language.
Yen-Ju
[snip]
>
> Marvin Humphrey
> Rectangular Research
> http://www.rectangular.com/
>
>
Re: Objective-C port
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Jun 19, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Yen-Ju Chen wrote:
> I would say the immediate benefit is the ease of maintaince side-
> by-side
> with Apache lucene. I think that's one of the biggest problem of all
> the ports.
That's why Dave and I teamed up!
> As for the performance, objc port will definitely faster than Ruby
> and Python
> with the same C engine, and should be faster than Apache Lucene
> because of Java,
I don't think comparative performance of the various bindings will
drive anybody's choice as to which they'd deploy. They'll be within
shouting distance of each other (unlike KinoSearch and Plucene, which
are separated by more than an order of magnitude). If I had to pick
a horse, presumably the eventual winner would be a C version powered
by APR (should such a thing come into existence). It's not going to
matter. If you're developing in Ruby, you're not going to add ObjC
to your environment to pick up that last few percent. Just throw
some hardware at the problem, that's cheaper!
> I am eager to see Lucy soon.
Ditto. :)
Marvin Humphrey
Rectangular Research
http://www.rectangular.com/
Re: Objective-C port
Posted by Yen-Ju Chen <yj...@gmail.com>.
On 6/19/06, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:49 PM, Yen-Ju Chen wrote:
>
> > This discussion may give you some insight:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.gnustep.discuss/browse_thread/
> > thread/25821afbcec86d90/ca5e9e1a58ceca5b
>
> It sounds like the same problem, and the same solution should work.
I would say the immediate benefit is the ease of maintaince side-by-side
with Apache lucene. I think that's one of the biggest problem of all
the ports.
As for the performance, objc port will definitely faster than Ruby and Python
with the same C engine, and should be faster than Apache Lucene
because of Java,
But again, I am not an expert. It is just a pure guess.
I am eager to see Lucy soon.
Yen-Ju
>
> Marvin Humphrey
> Rectangular Research
> http://www.rectangular.com/
>
>
Re: Objective-C port
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:49 PM, Yen-Ju Chen wrote:
> This discussion may give you some insight:
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.gnustep.discuss/browse_thread/
> thread/25821afbcec86d90/ca5e9e1a58ceca5b
It sounds like the same problem, and the same solution should work.
Marvin Humphrey
Rectangular Research
http://www.rectangular.com/
Re: Objective-C port
Posted by Yen-Ju Chen <yj...@gmail.com>.
On 6/19/06, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:07 PM, Yen-Ju Chen wrote:
>
> > We have an objective-c port of Apache Lucene in Etoile project
> > (www.etoile-project.org).
> > It works for Cocoa on mac and GNUstep on Unix.
> > It is basically a class-to-class port and pass most of the unit tests.
> > Unfortunately, it suffers the same issue of most of other ports.
>
> Interesting! How relevant is this to ObjC and your project?
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/MinimizingObjectOverhead
Unfortunately, I am not an expert on this issue.
This discussion may give you some insight:
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.gnustep.discuss/browse_thread/thread/25821afbcec86d90/ca5e9e1a58ceca5b
Objective-C is based on C.
For performance, you can access the underneath C function and structure
if you really want.
And Objective-C do have a runtime (a GNU one and a Mac/NeXT one).
So in some way, it is similar to some of the interpret languages.
Yen-Ju
>
> Marvin Humphrey
> Rectangular Research
> http://www.rectangular.com/
>
>
Re: Objective-C port
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:07 PM, Yen-Ju Chen wrote:
> We have an objective-c port of Apache Lucene in Etoile project
> (www.etoile-project.org).
> It works for Cocoa on mac and GNUstep on Unix.
> It is basically a class-to-class port and pass most of the unit tests.
> Unfortunately, it suffers the same issue of most of other ports.
Interesting! How relevant is this to ObjC and your project?
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/MinimizingObjectOverhead
Marvin Humphrey
Rectangular Research
http://www.rectangular.com/