miun.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 2 of 2
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Ramsell, Daniel
    Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Information Systems and Technology.
    Improve and optimize search engine: To provide better and relevant content for the customer2019Independent thesis Advanced level (professional degree), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
    Abstract [en]

    This report has conducted a research of comparing a few open source search engines. The research contains two evaluation processes, the first evaluation will evaluate each open source search engine found on today’s market. Points will be given between one to five points depending on how well the open source search engine meets the requirements. The open source search engine with the highest score will then be chosen for implementation. The first evaluation resulted in Elasticsearch being the selected open source search engine and will continue to the implementation phase. The second evaluation will be measuring the system performance and the relevance of the SERP (Search Engine Results Pages). This phase will evaluate the system performance by taking time measurements on how long it takes for the search engines to deliver the SERP. The relevance of the search results will be judge by a group of CSN employers. The group will be giving point be-tween one to five points depending on the relevance of the SERP. It will eval-uate Elasticsearch with the search engine CSN are using today on their web-site (www.csn.se). This phase resulted in Elasticsearch being the better in performance measurements but not in the relevance of the SERP. This was discussed and came to the conclusion that most points were lost because of the first search result Elasticsearch delivered. If this search result was re-moved Elasticsearch could deliver as good results as the old search engine. The survey came to the conclusion that Elasticsearch is recommended for CSN if certain problem areas could be corrected before implementation into their systems.

     

  • 2.
    Ramsell, Daniel
    Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Information Systems and Technology.
    Jämförelse av Javascript-ramverk: En undersökning på CSN2017Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
    Abstract [en]

    In this report, a number of different Javascript-frameworks have been compared. The study is conducted at CSN (Centrala studiestödsnämnden). The study consists of two main parts, an evalua- tion through the literature study and an evaluation of the implementa- tion. The first part of the survey has Javascript-frameworks Angular2, Aurelia, Ember, Meteor and React comparisons. Together with CSN, a few criteria have been developed which will then be awarded points between one and five depending on how well a Javascript-framework meets a specific criterion. Five points are given when the Javascript- framework meets the entire criterion, one point is given when it partial- ly meets the criterion. After the first part of the investigation, Angular2 and Aurelia found that they would move on to the implementation phase. The implementation consists of a couple of windows from the existing service "Mina tjänster". In the evaluate implementation measures time for implementation, web browsing time, and number of code rows. From this it was found that Aurelia has less number of code rows than Angular 2. The reading time for Angular 2 is three times longer than Aurelia. In the evaluation of how difficult it is to implement the two frameworks, Angular 2 is considered to be "Average" and Aurelia to "Hard". The Javascript-framework recommended for CSN is Angular 2. This is because much more documentation about Angular 2 is available, and the difficulty is lower for Angular 2. The startup of a project is also much easier in Angular 2, which means that it requires less time to get into the framework.

1 - 2 of 2
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf