RE: Which Way of "Extending" Gives Fastest Performance

[Robert Pepersack]

It shouldn't be significant.  On page 41 of the book, Ceki says, "This is 
an insignificant overhead because evaluating a logger takes less than 1% of 
the time it actually takes to log.  If a method contains multiple log 
statements, it may be possible to factor out the tests."

I factor out the tests, because I'm sensitive to performance.



At 11:51 AM 04/22/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Is the call to isDebugEnabled actually significant?

James Stauffer



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Pepersack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:49 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: Which Way of "Extending" Gives Fastest Performance
You could create a class boolean variable that is set once by
isDebugEnabled().  Then you could say:
private boolean debug = logger.isDebugEnabled();

In you method code you could say:

if (debug) cat.debug(myObject.showState());

This would make it so that you only call isDebugEnabled() once in each
class.
At 11:54 AM 04/22/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>This is a little off from the original question, and note that we also
>haven't touched any of our logging code in quite a while, but:
>
>We found that we had to address some performance problems where there
>was
>an insignificant cost to creating the string that we were going to send to
>log4j.
>
>For example, you might have:
>
>    cat.debug(myObject.showState());
>
>or some such thing, and the issue is that even if debug logging is
>disabled, the call into cat.debug() is still made, which means the call to
>myObject.showState() is also made, even if the results from showState()
>are in fact never used.
>
>We handled this by wrapping all of logging statements (well, at least
>debug ones, I think) in a conditional, like this:
>
>   if (cat.isDebugEnabled()) cat.debug(myObject.showState());
>
>to avoid that overhead.
>
>I was never really happy with this.  I suppose some sort of helper
>object
>might have made more sense... or is there a better way now to deal with
this?
>
>dwh
>
>
>James Stauffer wrote:
>
>>Do you know that logging has a significant effect on your current
>>performance?  If it only takes 0.01% of CPU time then it doesn't
>>really matter.
>>
>>James Stauffer
>>
>>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Pepersack
410-468-2054
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Pepersack
410-468-2054
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]