Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Bulk Array Element Allocation, is it faster?
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:39:08 +0200
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <j5mpbc$ko6$1@news.albasani.net>
References: <j5lvf0$bhl$1@news.albasani.net> <j5m0nh$7c2$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net L+WkmeQ1EwnhsJi0e9Pr6rnrbFhpFjlnQGC5ShPbIzCedFHg8HLDrQkFdl1FXvE2z/rnx4CzLrQ4q6TEzgsg8tBojU4D1lb8eyW6WCeXYPKfd3nP/y6wr5hywwqCNltc
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:39:08 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="KFBVuoiSj2CD9Kky8a4vUksnW7hzDAxAVIAyJOKaOratSFfvLWzuCR6848O94QlkzgUjvpEz6TXroxClxYABLWrjBVp8mPfHhGSjm9tMnmNN8TRTIa4ysE4ZBZxIvFyt"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Firefox/6.0.2 SeaMonkey/2.3.3
In-Reply-To: <j5m0nh$7c2$1@dont-email.me>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+FEwkaKfSjIo7rR7BcqpSM8JK4o=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:8283

Eric Sosman schrieb:
>      This could be a win if you will actually use only a few of
> the array elements, and if constructing a Bla is expensive (for
> example, if it involves I/O).  If Bla's are cheap to make, or if
> you'll wind up using most of them anyhow, there's no obvious
> reason to conditionalize.

The bla <init> does nothing. And yes it could
be that a bla is not needed, that is why I
invented the lazy scheme. But I see the slowdown
especially for when all the bla's are needed.

 >      Nine percent longer.  But I'm highly suspicious of those nice,
 > round numbers: It seems an unlikely coincidence that two rather
 > different chunks of code should both execute in even tenths of
 > seconds.

Repeated measurements give different figures,
which lead me to see an accuracy of measurement
of around 100ms, so instead of telling you that
the application needs one time 9538 ms and another
time 9622 ms etc.. I gave only the order of the
time spend rounded to hundreds.

Bye