Fix preformance issues #2
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Before : LoopBenchmarkMain.forEachLambdaMaxInteger avgt 10 0,711 ± 0,159 ms/op After : LoopBenchmarkMain.forEachLambdaMaxInteger avgt 10 0,130 ± 0,032 ms/op
Before : LoopBenchmarkMain.streamMaxInteger avgt 10 0,673 ± 0,022 ms/op After : LoopBenchmarkMain.streamMaxInteger avgt 10 0,130 ± 0,025 ms/op
Before : LoopBenchmarkMain.streamMaxInteger avgt 10 0,673 ± 0,022 ms/op After : LoopBenchmarkMain.lambdaMaxInteger avgt 10 0,104 ± 0,004 ms/op
Before : LoopBenchmarkMain.parallelStreamMaxInteger avgt 10 0,490 ± 0,075 ms/op After : LoopBenchmarkMain.parallelStreamMaxInteger avgt 10 0,067 ± 0,004 ms/op
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Before :
Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units
LoopBenchmarkMain.forEachLambdaMaxInteger avgt 10 0,711 ± 0,159 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.forEachLoopMaxInteger avgt 10 0,126 ± 0,003 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.forMaxInteger avgt 10 0,233 ± 0,029 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.iteratorMaxInteger avgt 10 0,127 ± 0,010 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.lambdaMaxInteger avgt 10 0,620 ± 0,063 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.parallelStreamMaxInteger avgt 10 0,490 ± 0,075 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.streamMaxInteger avgt 10 0,673 ± 0,022 ms/op
After :
Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units
LoopBenchmarkMain.forEachLambdaMaxInteger avgt 10 0,135 ± 0,031 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.forEachLoopMaxInteger avgt 10 0,127 ± 0,005 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.forMaxInteger avgt 10 0,229 ± 0,010 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.iteratorMaxInteger avgt 10 0,123 ± 0,002 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.lambdaMaxInteger avgt 10 0,104 ± 0,005 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.parallelStreamMaxInteger avgt 10 0,294 ± 0,038 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.streamMaxInteger avgt 10 0,116 ± 0,005 ms/op
Thread something strange on parallelStreamMaxInteger, the result is not stable. But i think the operation is to fast to take advantage of parallel, maybe you can try with 10 000 000 of integers.
PS : I think your blog post needs to be updated :)
EDIT :
By removing volatile, the result are better on forMaxInteger and parallelStreamMaxInteger :
Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units
LoopBenchmarkMain.forEachLambdaMaxInteger avgt 10 0,140 ± 0,032 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.forEachLoopMaxInteger avgt 10 0,125 ± 0,005 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.forMaxInteger avgt 10 0,136 ± 0,065 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.iteratorMaxInteger avgt 10 0,140 ± 0,022 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.lambdaMaxInteger avgt 10 0,112 ± 0,002 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.parallelStreamMaxInteger avgt 10 0,083 ± 0,010 ms/op
LoopBenchmarkMain.streamMaxInteger avgt 10 0,119 ± 0,010 ms/op