On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:14:50 -0400, bearophile <[email protected]>
wrote:
Robert Jacques:
Happy to see my post was not fully lost in the noise :-)
And I would
hazard that Java's StringBuilder isn't giving you O(1) access to the
underlying array like Appender is, which would allow it to drastically
reduce memory churn.
The first purpose of an Appender/builder is to build an array as fast as
possible. I don't need a very access to the array while I build it (a
Deque too allows O(1) too, just a bit slower).
In the future, you should also include program ram usages in these kind
of
benchmarks.
The amount of memory used/commited is less easy to measure precisely,
here are approximated values, the result are weird:
Timings, best of 3, n = 10_000_000, MB (commit):
D test1: 290
D test2a: 186
D test2b: 1.9
D test3: 188
D test4: 106
Java -Xmx500M -server Test1: 355
Java -Xmx500M -server Test2a: 355
Java -Xmx500M -server Test2b: 355
Bye,
bearophile
I've filled this issue in bugzilla as issue 5813
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813) along with a patch
I've developed.
