Re: MaJorToM version 1.2.0 released

Lars,

On 4/16/2011 4:14 AM, Lars Heuer wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> [...]
>> I don't know of any reason why "your" tests should not count.
> Since I don't know MaJorToM well enough and maybe some tweaks exist to
> make the engine faster. That's the reason why I emphasized "TMAPI
> mode" and "memory backend". Benchmarks should always be taken with a
> grain of salt since it's not very difficult to show that something is
> slow.
>
True but benchmarks can be useful for general comparisons.

One thing I would expect a Topic Map Benchmark suite to include would be 
fairly specific testing conditions and allow for notations of "tweaks" 
that were made to an "out of the box" configuration.

Would still be subject to abuse but the same is true for any "test" that 
is poorly applied and/or understood.
>> Is there a pointer to them so if a Topic Maps benchmark project did
>> happen they could be considered for inclusion?
> I simply ran the CXTM test suite [1] against the memory backends of
> Ontopia, MaJorToM, and tinyTiM.
>
Thanks!

Hope you are having a great weekend!

Patrick


> [1]<http://cxtm-tests.sourceforge.net/>
>
> Best regards,
> Lars

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick-Q/[email protected]
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau