I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections.
-bp On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote: > Yet another dependency to add to the mix. > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL > <co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote: >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf >> Of James Carman [ja...@carmanconsulting.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM >> To: Commons Users List >> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? >> >> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if >> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to. >> >> >> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is >> practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason >> not to use it if it is supported and reliable. >> >> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when >> I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
