https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45396
Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|org.apache.tools.zip is 20x |org.apache.tools.zip is 20x
|slower than java.util.zip |slower than java.util.zip
| |when compressing big files
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-07-15 23:21:31 PST
---
I've extended the test code which compressed two big files (2 and 3 MB) to
cover the case of many small files (2000 files of 2 or 3 kB) and covered
reading as well.
The big file compression case is actually worse on my machine (WinXP) where
java.util.zip is more like 40 times faster. OTOH Ant wins in the small file
case.
Ant is slower when reading the ZIPs, but the performance difference isn't as
bad.
==> Benchmarking big files
Apache write warmup done
Apache write: 147640 [ms]
JDK write warmup done
JDK write: 3219 [ms]
Apache read warmup done
Apache read: 453 [ms]
JDK Warmup done
JDK read: 125 [ms]
==> Benchmarking small files
Apache write warmup done
Apache write: 4406 [ms]
JDK write warmup done
JDK write: 6531 [ms]
Apache read warmup done
Apache read: 1859 [ms]
JDK Warmup done
JDK read: 1312 [ms]
I made the ocde compile on JDK 1.4 because I wanted to compare different JDKs.
In the end the differeneces were so small I didn't include them here (JDK6 was
a bit faster for java.util.zip as well as in the Ant case).
For reference, this is against Ant's subversion revision 677166.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
