I know that people will notice; I have personal experience with systems that included custom Map implementations were written because HashMaps grew too large for small data sets (less than 2000, actually) and wasted a lot of memory for the unnecessary capacity. Even the use of the capacity and load factor didn't provide enough compensation in these cases.
-Nathan On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Sergey Salishev < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nathan, > > I don't think anyone will notice the hash map size rounding. It can lead > to > some memory overhead in very rare cases the user creates hash map with the > exact size. But in the most common case where the map is created with > default size the rounding will not change the behavior at all as it's in > agreement with the standard 2x growth policy. On the other hand size > rounding gives substantial performance boost on all gets. > > Thanks. > Sergey. > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > wrote: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5718 > > > > Again, I don't agree with the capacity rounding in the patch attached to > > this issue. I do like the change to the internal data structure; use two > > arrays for key/value instead a single array. It makes the code easier to > > read. > > > > -Nathan > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Aleksey Shipilev < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]>> > wrote: > > > > > Colleagues, > > > > > > I had recently filed two JIRAs with improvements in Collections, > > > giving up to +30-40% to serialization benchmarks. Presumably they will > > > boost the performance across the all users since the optimization is > > > pretty general: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5761 > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5718 > > > > > > Would some classlib guru (Tim, Nathan, Tony?) review and commit them? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Aleksey. > > > > > >
