Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lapsa | Hacker News Reader

Given I'm quite a newb at this field - found article interesting despite having (probably deserved) criticism.

The critics are all Lucene developers or deeply invested in that. The criticism boils down to well "Simply just know Lucene and handle the million lines of code by writing plugins and configurations to get the same result as OP", except with worse performance.

That's not true. The real problem is that he is implying that his software is faster than Lucene showing data from a benchmark that has substantial flaws. The reason why the majority of criticism comes from Lucene users is because they generally have a higher knownledge about this field than the people that read this article without having the basic knowledge to form any kind of criticism

Incorrect. The benchmark is fine. Your so-called "fundamental" flaws are just superficial things, such as using a different time measure, using a different benchmark library, passing in a thread pool, and so on. These are immaterial for relative comparison, unless proven otherwise.

I have repeated asked you to send the code that does things properly in your mind, and you refused to do so.

So you are just trolling. Please stop hinder the progress of the industry through pointless trolling. Makes some positive contributions instead, and I have pointed out repeatedly how to make a positive contribution in this case. Please do.

You are a university student, I am a seasoned computer scientist, past researcher and professor, I am busying running a startup. This will be the last time I will say this to you: please consider contributing something positive to the world.

I already explained to you why I didn't open more than one PR to the project, I'm not trolling anyone: without knowing Clojure the only contribution that I could do without spending literally days of work is just the use of System.nanoTime() instead of System.currentTimeMillis(). The reason why I don't write the other benchmarks in Java is because reimplementing anything from zero costs precious time, that I don't have. If you don't have time too, instead of closing the issues and calling me a troll, you can just say that; you are taking some valid critiques as a personal attack.

It's true that I'm just an university student and you are a scientist, a researcher, a professor, and an enterpreneur, but it doesn't mean that I can't be knowledged as you in very narrow fields. I'm currently running a personal project that uses Lucene since four years ago, with about 8 billion messages and 340 million chats stored in a distributed lucene index, so I'm not the regular troll or a person that just talks without knowing anything. I surely can't critique your T-WAND algorithm, that it seems to be good in your use case, but with all the humilty in the world I can say to have the minimum knowledge required to spot some weird usages of Lucene APIs.

As I have repeated suggested, since you obviously know Lucene, it does not take much for you to write a few lines of Java code to say, "here, this is how it is supposed to be done".

Instead, you keeps giving all kind of excuses. You said you do not have time, but somehow you have time to write long wall of text like this. If you are not trolling, what you are doing then?

I pointed out to you why your suggestions will not make differences, some I have already tried. For example, initializing a query parser only once, but that would crash Lucene. Clearly, you do not know about this, so your knowledge of Lucene is not as good as you think you know.

Fair?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com