I have finaly started to test the cvs-implimentation.
Facts:
A FileList consisting of 58425 files (mp3, jpeg, .nfo and .sfv).
Compared 0.242 with the CVS implimentation using the same filelist.
I faked 10 Passive searchs / second to the client using a bouncer with random nickname, random size, random searchstring.
size was between 0 and 50MiB.
searchstring was one word between 5 to 14 chars.
With a 1.2Ghz machine, it used approximatly 26% cpu using the CVS-implimentation. The 0.242 consumed approximated 40%.
oooh-i-like-it-so-much-yes-i-do-ly'ers ;))
Regarding QuickSearch variant of the Boyer-Moore.
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Posts: 506
- Joined: 2003-01-03 07:33
Regarding QuickSearch variant of the Boyer-Moore.
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.
Re: Regarding QuickSearch variant of the Boyer-Moore.
Neat!
Now, if only we could get it to ignore stupid people automatically...
Sarf
---
Read my LISP -- no new syntaxes!
Now, if only we could get it to ignore stupid people automatically...
Sarf
---
Read my LISP -- no new syntaxes!
-
- The Creator Himself
- Posts: 296
- Joined: 2003-01-02 17:15
Ah. This was exactly the kind of test I was hoping for. Another you could do would be log on to 10 average large hubs, record x searches and then run them through (real data, better than random because it hits more often, blah, blah, blah...)...also, (more importantly) check it for correctness...would be nice to have it properly tested with all possible alternatives to then be able to announce that it's a "searchbugfree" version for hubs to force upon users...