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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #27513

Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7

Show all headers | View raw

Dennis Haupt schrieb:
> i wrote a little pathfinder. i can run it under the jdk7 update 51 and it is done in ~20 seconds. under java8, since a long series of builds, a certain part involving deeeeeeeeeep recursion takes ~60 seconds instead of 10.
> i suspected the hashmap change of java8 to be the culprit since i perform a lot of put operations, but that's not it - i used the standard  hashmap from scala to be 100% sure the hashmap can't be the reason (or is), and indeed, i get the same performance difference between java7 and 8 with the same hashmap
> my profiler (yourkit) shows that java8 spends a much bigger amount of time on garbage collection and allocated more objects. if i take a memory snapshot, can see that the final results are equal, so i have more temporary objects. yourkit also shows that more objects are allocated using java8.
> what is up with that?
> all i do in the critical method is creating arraylists and performing puts, contains and gets on a hashmap, and the recursive call. the time is, according to yourkit, spend in the method itself, not inside the hashmap or arraylist constructor.
> any ideas?
>

I found that JDK 8 is more speedier than JDK 7, around 5%
better, which is nice. But my testing might not be
representative:

     Jekejeke Prolog Runtime on JDK 8
     https://plus.google.com/103259555581227445618/posts/Mjw49qhBWku

I didn't yet have a closer look to one of my apps. Usually
I also look how the IDE behaves. But unfortunately IntelliJ
IDEA 13 refuses to run under JDK 8 as of now. Didn't yet
figure out how to start it with JDK 8. Compiling JDK 8
on the other works fine.

Bye

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

Thread

java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Dennis Haupt <d.haupt82@gmail.com> - 2014-02-15 03:00 -0800
  Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2014-02-15 12:26 +0100
    Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2014-02-15 12:28 +0100
    Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2014-02-15 12:52 +0100
      Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-16 13:10 +0100
        Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2014-02-16 14:38 +0100
          Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2014-02-16 14:43 +0100
            Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-16 14:53 +0100
              Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2014-02-16 20:27 +0100
                Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2014-02-16 20:36 +0100
                Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-17 18:55 +0100
                Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 20:52 +0100
                Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2014-03-03 11:53 +0100
                Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2014-03-03 17:16 +0100
                Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2014-03-03 19:53 +0100
                Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 13:44 -0800
      Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-02-16 11:24 -0800
  Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-15 12:55 +0100
  Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 "Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixFour@gmail.com> - 2014-02-15 23:42 +1100
  Re: java8 up to 6x slower than java7 Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-02-16 00:25 -0800

csiph-web