Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #36889

Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed

Path	csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed
Date	Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:41:53 +0200
Organization	Decebal Computing
Lines	36
Message-ID	<87pod44foe.fsf@munus.decebal.nl> (permalink)
References	<87d1946ab3.fsf@munus.decebal.nl> <ok7oar$1uaf$2@gioia.aioe.org> <cf0341d5-fc31-4aca-822e-d51c5d74587f@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
Injection-Info	mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="cea988b749795bfe5e66959d383985c6"; logging-data="22604"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PENsfiLsceCbOSR1L7y4SLiiwr/O69CY="
User-Agent	Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock	sha1:bTibv4eT4/hjfy/Zl/CORE0sK1g= sha1:IlGCxG4kP7VjphEN/iU+g+i/Csk=
X-Homepage	http://www.decebal.nl/
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:36889

Show key headers only | View raw

Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 8:16:38 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> 
>> Drop the two items you already have??
>> 
>> :-)
>> 
>> Seriously I don't think using final and avoiding auto-boxing
>> are good performance topics.
>> 
>> I would not expect any impact in overall performance of real world
>> applications.
>> 
>> Arne
>
> Since my compiler doesn't warn, I don't pay much attention to implicit
> autoboxing. I don't know why anyone would do unnecessary explicit
> autoboxing. I'd like to see a real world sample showing notable
> performance improvement by going out of your way to avoid autoboxing.
> Often using it does at least make code more readable.

Look at the example at:
    https://github.com/CecilWesterhof/JavaExamples/blob/master/BoxedTest.java

And it also shows that using a long where an integer is sufficient it
can have a gigantic difference. On my system the long/integer (which
already takes a third less time in the first run) is after 5 runs
about  2½ million times faster as after the first run, while the
long/long part is not optimised. See my reply in:
    One code is aggressively optimised, while another not. Why?

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

Thread

A third easy performance optimisation needed Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2017-07-13 09:54 +0200
  Re:A third easy performance optimisation needed omegajunior <omegajunior@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-13 06:29 -0400
  Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2017-07-13 11:27 +0000
  Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2017-07-13 07:41 -0400
    Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 05:48 -0700
      Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-07-13 19:39 -0400
    Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2017-07-13 15:14 +0200
      Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 07:07 -0700
        Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2017-07-13 19:58 +0200
          Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2017-07-13 20:02 +0200
  Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-07-13 08:16 -0400
    Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 06:08 -0700
      Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2017-07-13 15:41 +0200
        Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 07:09 -0700
          Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 08:07 -0700
          Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2017-07-13 18:37 +0200
        Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2017-07-13 13:19 -0500
          Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-07-13 14:32 -0400
      Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-07-13 13:52 -0400
        Re: A third easy performance optimisation needed Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 07:52 -0700
  A third easy performance optimisation needed lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 14:47 -0700

csiph-web