[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2493?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12485191
]
Bryan Pendleton commented on DERBY-2493:
----------------------------------------
I read (can't find the reference, sorry) that switching to use of unsynchronized
collection classes appears to provide substantially less benefit in JDK 1.5/1.6
than it did in, say, 1.3.
What is your experience? Does switching to the unsynchronized class provide
a substantial benefit in a 1.5 or 1.6 environment? Is there any easy comparison
of the magnitude of the difference between, say, 1.4 and 1.6 environments?
> Use unsynchronized collections in BackingStoreHashtable
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2493
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2493
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Performance, Store
> Affects Versions: 10.3.0.0
> Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Assigned To: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: derby-2493-aggregate.diff, derby-2493-aggregate.stat,
> derby-2493-assert.diff, derby-2493-assert.stat
>
>
> BackingStoreHashtable uses a Vector and a Hashtable, but doesn't need the
> synchronization provided by these classes (I think). Replacing them with
> ArrayList and HashMap could improve performance for some kinds of operations.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
