On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 20:56:50 GMT, Roger Riggs <rri...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> add jmh test > > Thanks for the JMH tests and data. > > The only part needed from the JMH run is the last 9 lines. The rest is noise. > If it was formatted as a literal it would be easier to read. > > What I see is that the run with == is quite a bit slower. > > With the == check: > > > StringOther.regionMatchesU1024LL avgt 15 187.258 ± 1.038 ns/op > StringOther.regionMatchesU1024LU avgt 15 2589.833 ± 8.823 ns/op > StringOther.regionMatchesU1024UL avgt 15 2379.645 ± 6.481 ns/op > StringOther.regionMatchesU1024UU avgt 15 191.587 ± 7.069 ns/op > > > Without the == check: > > > StringOther.regionMatchesU1024LL avgt 15 187.732 ± 1.914 ns/op > StringOther.regionMatchesU1024LU avgt 15 1324.156 ± 11.761 ns/op > StringOther.regionMatchesU1024UL avgt 15 1331.857 ± 22.509 ns/op > StringOther.regionMatchesU1024UU avgt 15 188.872 ± 2.396 ns/op > > > In the JMH cases, does the long prefix of latin1 characters distort the > timings? @RogerRiggs > What I see is that the run with == is quite a bit slower. Yes, the result is amazing to me. Before you reply I re-run several times but similar result. So I respect the truth. > In the JMH cases, does the long prefix of latin1 characters distort the > timings? No, the long prefix part is where real difference comes. So according to jmh result, the = check removed. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8308
