At 09:23 PM 9/28/2004, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
Excuse all. I should have double checked my results...
The javadoc should nevertheless IMHO be updated so as to reflect the
current difference between Vector and Chain. (i.e. 3 times slower instead
of 20)
On my machine, a Pentium 4 2.5 GhZ, running W
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Bonjour Frédéric,
Thanks you for initiating this discussion.
My tests show that the in the LinkedList loop the inside of the loop
is never exercised.
static double loopLinkedList() {
long before = System.currentTimeMillis();
ListIterator litcc;
for(int i = 0; i < RU
Hello,
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:47:55 +0200
Markus Schaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > static double loopLinkedList() {
> > long before = System.currentTimeMillis();
> > ListIterator litcc;
> > for(int i = 0; i < RUN_LENGTH; i++) {
> >litcc = llhead;
> >while(lit
Hello,
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:38:34 +0200
Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> static double loopLinkedList() {
> long before = System.currentTimeMillis();
> ListIterator litcc;
> for(int i = 0; i < RUN_LENGTH; i++) {
>litcc = llhead;
>while(litcc.hasNext()) {
Hi, Frederic,
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:05:37 +0200
Frédéric Delanoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Initialization time : similars
> Chain looping : 0.2654
> Vector looping : 0.8733
> ArrayList looping : 0.721
> LinkedList looping : 0.0961
I did some performance tests this morning (see atta
Bonjour Frédéric,
Thanks you for initiating this discussion.
My tests show that the in the LinkedList loop the inside of the loop
is never exercised.
static double loopLinkedList() {
long before = System.currentTimeMillis();
ListIterator litcc;
for(int i = 0; i < RUN_LENGTH; i++) {
