Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
|cc:
|
|Subject: RE: [COLLECTIONS] FastHashMap performance
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: RE: [COLLECTIONS] FastHashMap performance
In your test, are you synchronizing the HashMap? FastHashMap
implements
smart synchronization. It should not be compared with an
unsynchronized
version of HashMap.
P.S. In fact, it might be nice to allow doing
: [COLLECTIONS] FastHashMap performance
Howdy,
I've had tests with both a normal hashmap (just new HashMap() used) and
a synchronized wrapper (Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap()). I
would expect the normal HashMap to be faster than both the FastHashMap
and the synchronized HashMap. Is my
: RE: [COLLECTIONS] FastHashMap performance
Howdy,
I've had tests with both a normal hashmap (just new HashMap() used) and
a synchronized wrapper (Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap()). I
would expect the normal HashMap to be faster than both the FastHashMap
and the synchronized HashMap
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] FastHashMap performance
I have tried to implement performance tests for maps, but it is not
trivial.
Try to dissable GC and JIT for performance tests.
- Original Message -
From: Shapira, Yoav [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta
Developers List
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: [COLLECTIONS] FastHashMap performance
Howdy,
Assuming I agree that GC and JIT play a role in my benchmark (which I
don't without further convincing), how should I disable them
Howdy,
From Java theory and practice: Urban performance legends
(http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jtp04223.html?ca=dnt-4
16):
I'd read that when it was posted: it's a good and interesting article.
Thank you for sending the link anyways. I agree with many of the points
made in the
