Thanks for suggestion Jeff!
I've tried it, but it doesn't seem to make a difference on my machine.
Here are the numbers. I measured the time of a single put in nanoseconds.
----------- | vanila | fix1 | fix2
client | 8292 | 8220 | 8304
server | 8197 | 8198 | 8221
interpreter | 13980 | 14478 | 14152
fix1 - the fix from webrev #3
fix2 - the fix with your suggestion
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
On 06.07.2014 15:13, Jeff Hain wrote:
>So, I reverted this change to the original code, but added a single
>check of the current table size before doing any modifications to the
map.
>This is to address the issue #4, and this doesn't seem to introduce any
>significant penalty.
>
>Would you please help review the updated webrev:
>
>http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/6904367/3/webrev/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eigerasim/6904367/3/webrev/>
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>Ivan
It's possible to avoid the capacity test for the general case:
put {
...while loop...
if (size < threshold) {
modCount++;
tab[i] = k;
tab[i + 1] = value;
++size;
} else {
putAndResize(k, value, i);
}
return null;
}
private void putAndResize(Object k, Object value, int i) {
if (size == MAXIMUM_CAPACITY - 1)
throw new IllegalStateException("Capacity exhausted.");
modCount++;
Object[] tab = table;
tab[i] = k;
tab[i + 1] = value;
++size;
resize(tab.length); // len == 2 * current capacity.
}
It seems faster more often than not, but it adds more (and copied) code:
not sure it's worth it.
-Jeff
