<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en-us" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Simon Willison's Weblog: richard-boulton</title><link href="http://simonwillison.net/" rel="alternate"/><link href="http://simonwillison.net/tags/richard-boulton.atom" rel="self"/><id>http://simonwillison.net/</id><updated>2009-02-14T13:15:15+00:00</updated><author><name>Simon Willison</name></author><entry><title>Xapian performance comparision with Whoosh</title><link href="https://simonwillison.net/2009/Feb/14/xapian/#atom-tag" rel="alternate"/><published>2009-02-14T13:15:15+00:00</published><updated>2009-02-14T13:15:15+00:00</updated><id>https://simonwillison.net/2009/Feb/14/xapian/#atom-tag</id><summary type="html">
    
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href="http://xapian.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/xapian-performance-comparision-with-whoosh/"&gt;Xapian performance comparision with Whoosh&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
Whoosh appears to be around four times slower than Xapian for indexing and empty cache searches, but Xapian with a full cache blows Whoosh out of the water (5408 searches/second compared to 26.3). Considering how fast Xapian is, that’s still a pretty impressive result for the pure-Python Whoosh.


    &lt;p&gt;Tags: &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/full-text-search"&gt;full-text-search&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/python"&gt;python&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/richard-boulton"&gt;richard-boulton&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/search"&gt;search&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/whoosh"&gt;whoosh&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/xapian"&gt;xapian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;



</summary><category term="full-text-search"/><category term="python"/><category term="richard-boulton"/><category term="search"/><category term="whoosh"/><category term="xapian"/></entry></feed>