Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #32213

Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection

From	Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection
Date	2015-07-30 11:42 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<mpdghq$hti$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<7c2ab94b-ee4e-41c9-ae71-3896210e80b7@googlegroups.com> <mpd4tj$4aq$1@dont-email.me> <72344bf7-bb09-45b2-9e7f-723576fbb639@googlegroups.com> <mpd8qo$ijj$1@dont-email.me> <d2ba844b-8397-476c-8980-5cafc89487ca@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/30/2015 11:26 AM, e.d.programmer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 9:30:40 AM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>       It's much harder for Java, *much* harder.  One GC per thousand calls
>> might be irrelevant (I'm not confident it is, but won't try to argue),
>> but what about one JIT per thousand calls?  That is, if the first five
>> hundred calls are interpreted and the next five hundred run as native
>> code, what happens to the timing?  And if the code is then re-JITted
>> (as it may be, and frequently is), resulting in a different native-code
>> translation, what can one say about the five hundred calls not yet
>> measured?
>
> I haven't tried this microediting myself, I just get the timestamp then run a loop to call the method 10000 times then get the timestamp again and compare.
> Normally if it does call a GC at some point you do want that in your performance test because you don't want to test the method in a vacuum, you want to see how long it takes for end users..

     One of the articles I linked to suggests doing "several"
times that many loop executions ...

     ... in the *warmup* phase, before serious measurements.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

Thread

method micro benachmarking with reflection philipp.kraus.flashpixx@gmail.com - 2015-07-30 03:41 -0700
  Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-30 07:16 -0400
    Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-30 21:52 -0400
      Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-30 21:55 -0400
  Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-07-30 08:23 -0400
    Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-07-30 06:00 -0700
      Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-07-30 09:30 -0400
        Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-07-30 08:26 -0700
          Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-07-30 11:42 -0400
            Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-07-30 10:30 -0700
              Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-07-30 14:20 -0400
        Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-30 16:08 -0400
    Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection philipp.kraus.flashpixx@gmail.com - 2015-07-30 06:11 -0700
    Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2015-07-30 21:33 +0000
      Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-07-30 18:18 -0400
        Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-07-30 20:13 -0400
  Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-30 17:11 -0400
  Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2015-07-30 21:53 +0000
  Re: method micro benachmarking with reflection Sebastian <news@seyweiler.dyndns.org> - 2015-08-04 21:44 +0200

csiph-web