On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Regis Xu (JIRA) <j...@apache.org> wrote:
> In my understanding, SelectorBenchmark.java try to simulate a "real" > scenario of using selector, so I picked benchmark from HARMONY-4879 which > *only* test Selector.selectNow(), the result: > > svn + no mapping > clients/active per 100 10 > 100 1318 1102 > 500 8325 7612 > 1000 20083 18235 > 1500 33486 29643 > > svn > clients/active per 100 10 > 100 924 643 > 500 6465 5206 > 1000 16494 12250 > 1500 28537 20684 > > the gap is obvious. While micro benchmark just said a side of words, we > would like that it could work better in real world, I may need more time to > do more test. > >From a quick glance, this microbenchmark doesn't appear to test changes to the selected keys set. Since that's the reason for maintaining the indices, it doesn't feel like a representative benchmark. That said, the benchmark does show that iterating the full keyset has its cost. > I don't see reason to keep the previous select() method. > I'd like the old one to call the new one, so other places depend on old > interface can work without modifications. > There's only one other caller, so I'd prefer to just fix that. > > I found processing a .zip of git patches quite cumbersome to work with. > I just think small patches are easy to review, because one patch only do > one simple thing. What form of patches do you prefer? I think git can help > me to do that :) > Cool, and I agree that compartmentalized changes are good. Applying and diffing six patches just seemed labour-intensive for what I think of as one logical change.
