On Dec 13, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
> You will get better performance by not logging at all, no question. However,
> there are tuning possibilities. I see you mention "logger.info()". In
> production, I generally only have "warn()" and above for the vast majority of
> loggers. In fact, I configure the root logger up with the "WARN" level and
> selectively set other loggers to something less than WARN (if need be).
>
> The other thing you might look at is whether you are concatenating strings in
> your logging statements. For instance the following will incur an
> unnecessary cost in concatenating strings even when the "DEBUG" level is not
> enabled....
>
> logger.debug("product: " + someProduct + ", price: " + somePrice);
>
> A more efficient way to define this in your code is....
>
> if (logger.isDebugEnabled()) {
> logger.debug("product: " + someProduct + ", price: " + somePrice);
> }
>
alternatively use LogMF or LogSF (in the extras companion or in the SVN HEAD)
LogMF.debug(logger, "product: {0}, price: {1}", price,somePrice);
will have performance generally comparable to using logger.isDebugEnabled when
logging is disabled since any conversion and concatenation is deferred until
after the logging level is checked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
