On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Marko Topolnik <marko.topol...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 5, 2013 12:35:27 PM UTC+1, Christian Sperandio wrote: >> >> About the String's expensiveness, working a lot with this kind of >> objects, it's big enough. In fact, that depends if you have a lot of small >> strings then the used memory space can become important. >> For instance, the word "Bazinga" takes almost 60 bytes in memory (for a >> 32bits JVM) in which 24 bytes are used by internal String object. That >> space is bigger in 64 bits JVM. You can have more information from Internet >> (like http://blog.nirav.name/**2011/11/optimizing-string-** >> memory-footprint-in.html<http://blog.nirav.name/2011/11/optimizing-string-memory-footprint-in.html> >> ). >> >> Thus, when I need a lot of string chunks I often prefer use a characters >> array. It reduces the used memory footprint. >> > > It is good to know that, as of Java 7 Update 6, the String overhead has > been reduced by two ints (should be 8 bytes): there is no more sharing of > the *char[]* and, consequently, no more *offset* and *count* variables. > > While it's true those fields aren't used any more, I was under the impression at least one of those got replaced by the field used to cache the new more-secure hashCode. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
