Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #22028

Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+

From markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam>
Newsgroups comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+
Date 2013-02-02 15:31 -0800
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <kek7jh$fva$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <510c9cea$0$80106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <keid8j$2og$1@dont-email.me> <510d4249$0$80118$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <kejngo$lp1$1@dont-email.me> <510d972c$0$80186$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>

Show all headers | View raw


On 2/2/2013 2:46 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

> Some future JVMs do have JIT tricks to improve String performance.  It's
> not clear how that would perform or what the side effects would be.  One

The main think I'd like to see as a "trick" would be to spot when an 
array is not accessed after a copy, thus negating the need for a copy.

String constructor:

   public String( char[] chars ) {
     this.buffer = Arrays.copyOf( chars, chars.length );
   }

Usage:

   public String someMethod() {
     char[] myBuff = ...  // a local variable
     return new String( myBuff );
   }

Spotting that the copy isn't needed because myBuff is local and can't be 
accessed after the return is one obvious optimization.

If this type of analysis is very hard, I can see the original 
implementation of StringBuilder would be advantageous.  OTOH, it doesn't 
look hard, and I'd bet there's a lot of situations where checking a 
"copy-on-write bit" is a bigger performance hit.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ jlp <jlp@jlp.com> - 2013-02-01 19:33 +0100
  Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-02-01 10:38 -0800
    Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ jlp <jlp@jlp.com> - 2013-02-01 19:42 +0100
      Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-02-01 10:45 -0800
        Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ jlp <jlp@jlp.com> - 2013-02-01 19:57 +0100
          Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-02-01 11:20 -0800
  Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2013-02-01 20:34 +0100
  Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-02-01 20:58 -0800
    Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-02-01 22:55 -0800
      Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-02-02 08:43 -0800
        Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-02-02 10:56 -0800
          Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-02-02 14:46 -0800
            Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-02-02 15:31 -0800
            Re: String.substring in JDK 1.7.0_6+ Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-02-03 15:09 +0100

csiph-web