To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'm not sure you can even compare performance all that usefully since the fixes required to get those extra hits may end up slowing down the app. Still, it was quite impressive for a young project and the developers seem to think the problems were rather minor.
For sure! The report is very useful in showing problems too. The main point that must be addressed the low result count. This is something I was totally unaware of. The reason for that is that I've not come around to writing unit tests to test search reliability. This is the first thing to pay attention to after the KDE metainfo work is finished.
Nevertheless, the overall impression is very good. Most negative points are rather vague and revolve around smaller issues. Please forgive me for being overjoyed at the huge speed differences.
-oever





Member since:
2005-07-06
"best performance" in terms of speed and memory usage, but not "best performance" in terms of actual usefulness (i.e. it missed a bunch of results that the other tools got).