Apropos the idea of the maven profile is very good. +1 and thank you. Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
Maurizio Cucchiara On 22 October 2011 12:24, Maurizio Cucchiara <mcucchi...@apache.org> wrote: > Sure you can, before that I should merge new branch with the current trunk. > Further, FYI I have just submitted a patch for a small improvement > http://issues.carrot2.org/browse/JUNITBENCH-40 > > Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara > G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 > Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara > > Maurizio Cucchiara > > > On 22 October 2011 12:17, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi Mau, >> that for the explanation, that really helps on clarifying the graph!!! >> >> I have an idea about merging the tests in trunk with a profile >> approach that I already submitted for the Disruptor project[1] - they >> have performance/benchmark tests too - if it is fine for you I can >> work on it - not today that's Rugby day, maybe tomorrow :) >> >> All the best and have a nice WE, >> Simo >> >> [1] http://code.google.com/p/disruptor/issues/detail?id=2 >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Maurizio Cucchiara >> <mcucchi...@apache.org> wrote: >> > I almost forgot there are even old vs commons comparison. Stay tuned :) >> > >> > Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara >> > G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 >> > Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara >> > >> > Maurizio Cucchiara >> > >> > >> > >> > On 22 October 2011 09:58, Maurizio Cucchiara <mcucchi...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> Thank you Simo, >> >> Ok, I realized after that the graph needs at least a short explanation: >> >> In that test I have tried to test every caches which I re-engineered. >> >> In the graph you mentioned, there are depicted 3 different kind of >> >> cache implementations: >> >> 1. Concurrent HashMap (CHM) >> >> 2. Thread-safe HashMap (HM) >> >> 3. Reentrant Read Write Lock (RRWL) >> >> >> >> As you will notice, there are some cases where RRWL is faster, other >> >> where CHM and so on. >> >> So there is no yet a real winner approach, though, at very quick look, >> >> CHM seems to be the slower one (my guess is that it's the only >> >> not-fully thread safe). >> >> >> >> To answer your question about projects merging, they surely could work >> >> under the same project, my only concern is about the execution time. >> >> At the moment I'm writing the whole execution time is near 50 seconds >> >> (currently the non-benchmark side take more or less 20 seconds). >> >> Furthermore the benchmark tests don't give you an answer in term of >> >> correctness (aside from the concurrency issues), ATM the only >> >> motivation behind them is performance measurement. >> >> Next time I could check the hit/miss ratio. >> >> Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara >> >> G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 >> >> Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara >> >> >> >> Maurizio Cucchiara >> >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >
