2.0 performs pretty close to the NIO level. Here's a quick test you can compare the performance with...
Sangjin On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > this is interesting. > > If you have some code with those performance tests, that could also help. > > Otherwise, did you made some tests on 2.0 ? > > > Julien Vermillard wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:52:38 -0700 >> "Sangjin Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Forgot to add that this is a pretty crucial method. Any text based >>> decoder would need to use it to decode messages... Thanks! >>> Sangjin >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Sangjin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I've been looking at some performance characteristics of >>>> ByteBuffer.getString() in 1.1.x, and noticed that it is >>>> considerably slower than its NIO counterpart. I tested it with a >>>> few JVMs, and ByteBuffer.getString() performs anywhere between 3 - >>>> 5 times poorer than the NIO version. NIO does not have the >>>> getString() method, and one would use CharsetDecoder.decode(). >>>> I also checked the trunk version (IoBuffer.getString()), and it >>>> seems much faster and pretty close to the NIO performance. >>>> >>>> How is a performance issue with 1.1.x like this normally handled? >>>> Are we open to investigate and fix performance problems like this >>>> in 1.1.x as long as it does not entail API changes? If a simple >>>> change for IoBuffer resulted in this performance enhancement, >>>> perhaps we can backport that change? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Sangjin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> Hi Sangjin, >> >> I don't see any problem in patching 1.X for perfs. It's some kind of >> bugfix ;) >> >> Julien >> >> > > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org > > >
