I just performed the great "the" search of the entire library. My time was at least cut in half of over the last time I ran it. Anyone else seeing similar results?
Same here. I looked away from my screen, thinking that it would take some time for my search to complete, when I glanced back I was shocked that it completed so quickly.
[Y]
I doubt that is an apples-to-apples comparison because of the different way that results by Book are now compiled & displayed. Can you find the original post with all our search times?
My test case, a phrase search, is still unacceptably slow. A search for "prayers of the people" in my Entire Library took 158.76 sec (over 2 and 1/2 minutes!) according to Logos's internal clock. I measured 2-3/4 minutes until the first page worth of results displayed and 3-1/4 minutes until the progress animation stopped moving.
A search for "the" was similar: 129.79 sec according to Logos, 2-1/4 min until the first page displayed and 3-1/4 min until the progress animation stopped moving.
These were both "Ranked" not "By Book."
I don't have stats for what these searches used to take. before 4.2 Beta 3. But my subjective impression is it hasn't changed for me. [:(]
I've been getting excellent results: (EDIT: this was after a fresh index rebuild)
here is mine by rank. much better then it used to be.
On my netbook, with multiple indexes:
Maybe I should do a "rebuild index" overnight tonight and try again tomorrow. I did merge my indexes a couple of days ago, but perhaps that doesn't result in as clean and tight an index as a rebuild from scratch does.
I'm merging my index!
Currently 9.21s by Book & 8.34s Ranked in 952 resources.
Merge seems to have made it slower:
9.79s & 9.44s
I'm merging my index! Currently 9.21s by Book & 8.34s Ranked in 952 resources. Merge seems to have made it slower: 9.79s & 9.44s
Hmmm.....
I would give anything for a 9.79s search. Maybe the size of my library is to blame? I've got nearly 4 times as many resources. But I'd even give quite a lot to have a search that was 4 times as slow as yours. Even 10 times as slow would be faster than mine. I don't get it. OK, maybe it's my slow machine. Have you computed your benchmark to post on that thread? (See the first post in it for how to do so.)
After the index Rebuild the times are:-
9.13s & 8.6s on 953 resources (a new one downloaded whilst indexing).
So it would seem that a merged index is slower.
Hmmm..... I would give anything for a 9.79s search. Maybe the size of my library is to blame? I've got nearly 4 times as many resources. But I'd even give quite a lot to have a search that was 4 times as slow as yours. Even 10 times as slow would be faster than mine. I don't get it. OK, maybe it's my slow machine.
I would give anything for a 9.79s search. Maybe the size of my library is to blame? I've got nearly 4 times as many resources. But I'd even give quite a lot to have a search that was 4 times as slow as yours. Even 10 times as slow would be faster than mine. I don't get it. OK, maybe it's my slow machine.
The above times are on my quad-core desktop. Here's the times on the laptop, comparable to your own:-
18.97s by Book & 20.3s Ranked on 953 resources
Have you computed your benchmark to post on that thread? (See the first post in it for how to do so.)
I'll give it a go.
Here's the times on the laptop, comparable to your own:- 18.97s by Book & 20.3s Ranked on 953 resources
Here's the times on the laptop, comparable to your own:-
Those times are not comparable to mine at all (or did you mean your laptop is comparable to mine?). I was seeing times of 2 or 3 minutes for a search of 4229 resources.
did you mean your laptop is comparable to mine?
Yes. But see my Novabench results - the CPU difference is big!
I have a similar sized library to you, and an average computer. I'm getting 35s for a whole library search on 'the' (4,057 resources). A search for "prayers of the people" took 30s.
I did both searches immediately after loading Logos, so there should be nothing cached to speed things up.
Looking at your benchmarks compared to mine, it does seem your PC is rather underpowered. If was you, I'd cut back on the prepubs and invest some dollars in hardware. [:)]
I'd consider my machine 'average', (about $500 18 months ago). Certainly I've not tried to optimise it for Logos in anyway. When I get home I'll run the same test there, and see what difference I find.
I tried your search: "prayers of the people" on my entire library (1626 books, Platinum package + some extra books and commentary sets), and it took 15.3 seconds. I used the latest beta. My laptop has 4GB memory, an Intel Core2Duo T5870 processor (2Ghz), an ATI Mobility Radeon HD3430 videochip, and an OCZ Vertex2 SSD as harddisk.
Most laptop harddisks are quite slow. It was my experience that replacing the harddisk with an SSD made Logos much, much faster.
Looking at your benchmarks compared to mine, it does seem your PC is rather underpowered. If was you, I'd cut back on the prepubs and invest some dollars in hardware.
I actually have a relatively fast desktop sitting on my desk next to my laptop and it was running Logos just fine up to a few months ago when it died. I haven't had time to replace it and have been limping along with my laptop since then. It's not due to a lack of funds. I'll keep aquiring prepubs. It'd due to a lack of time. I need to cut back on the time I'm spending on the Logos forums and then maybe I'll have time to research my new computer and have it custom built for me. A friend has already offered to help. It's going to be a screamer. I've been asking questions about SSDs on other threads. I think I'm going to get the fastest available i7, gobs of RAM (12 GB at least, maybe even 24 GB), a 256 GB SSD for Win 7 and Logos and a 1TB HDD for the rest of my stuff. Still have to figure out the rest of the configuration. Graphics card and memory on that, power supply, CD/DVD drive(s), RAID, etc. Oh it would be so much easier to be in the Mac camp, not having to make all these decisions. But no, I would never go that route. I will be so happy once I've put in the time to make the right decisions!
When I get home I'll run the same test there, and see what difference I find.
On my home machine, I had 35s and 23s. I suspect the quicker second search is due to more RAM, so more of the index file was held in memory after the first search.
The first search was probably the same because although I have a slower CPU, I have a quicker HDD (15,000rpm).
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
