Did you try -Xem:server mode?
On 4/20/07, Leo Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Great!
On 4/20/07, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Cool! On which VM did you measure?
>
> 2007/4/20, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Nice to hear that :)
> >
> > SY, Alexey
> >
> > 2007/4/20, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > I wrote a small performance benchmark for testing List.add(int
index,
> Object
> > > element). Beyond my expectation, Harmony's ArrayList is amazingly
fast
> > > compared with RI. The test scenario is very simple:
> > >
> > > 1. fill a list with 100,000 elements
> > > for (int i = 0; i < LIST_COUNT; ++i) {
> > > list.add(element);
> > > }
> > > 2. add another 100,000 elements into this list in the random index
> from 0 -
> > > 100,000.
> > > for (int i = 0; i < LIST_COUNT; ++i) {
> > > list.add(indexGenerator.nextInt(LIST_COUNT),element);
> > > }
> > >
> > > For step2, Harmony's ArrayList 50% - 100% faster than RI!
> > >
> > > Here's the result from my machine:
> > > 1st run:
> > > Harmony ArrayList insert1: elapsed = 10ms
> > > Harmony ArrayList insert2: elapsed = 14861ms
> > > Harmony Vector insert1: elapsed = 70ms
> > > Harmony Vector insert2: elapsed = 30333ms
> > >
> > > RI ArrayList insert1: elapsed = 110ms
> > > RI ArrayList insert2: elapsed = 29532ms
> > > RI Vector insert1: elapsed = 70ms
> > > RI Vector insert2: elapsed = 30384ms
> > >
> > > 2nd run:
> > > Harmony ArrayList insert1: elapsed = 20ms
> > > Harmony ArrayList insert2: elapsed = 14941ms
> > > Harmony Vector insert1: elapsed = 70ms
> > > Harmony Vector insert2: elapsed = 31345ms
> > >
> > > RI ArrayList insert1: elapsed = 70ms
> > > RI ArrayList insert2: elapsed = 31726ms
> > > RI Vector insert1: elapsed = 60ms
> > > RI Vector insert2: elapsed = 31095ms
> > >
> > > Very good work!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrew Zhang
> > >
> >
>
--
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM
--
Mikhail Fursov
