Here are more test results:
Memory used Time elapsed
(bytes) (ms)
Without Pool 48453784 58093
JVM String pool 24088944 31325
HSQLDB ValuePool 24092992 27369
So for speed and memory, the HSQLDB pool seems really good :)
-> return org.hsqldb.store.ValuePool.getString( new String(chBuffer, 0,
j) );
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
wondersonic
Envoy� : vendredi 4 juillet 2003 22:39
� : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : TR: [Hsqldb-developers] Volunteer
Well astonishing!!!
I have reproduced my test on my pc with OptimizeIt :)
here are the results:
loaded 18,000 lines into a table of 60 columns (char(5) not null)
(always the same value: 'AAAAA')
=> takes over 300Mb
I've checked the place where the majority of String where created:
=> over 21,000 lines for only 52Mb !!!
the only change I've made is in the class Tokenizer#getString(char
quoteChar)...
910 return new String(chBuffer, 0, j).intern();
the "intern()" method...
I really don't know what to think about this modification: is it a patch
or not?
Personnaly, I think I'll make more test monday at my office :)
Loic
ps: I've just seen the comment of fredt:
// fredt - strings are constructed from new char[] objects to avoid
slack
// because these strings might end up as part of internal data
structures
// or table elements.
--> // we may consider using pools to avoid recreating the strings
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01
_______________________________________________
hsqldb-developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hsqldb-developers
