> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 13. lipanj 2002 19:35
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Performance of JNI calls
>
>
> "Mladen Turk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The most important thing that bothers me is that the java
> is more then
> > 2 times slower then the GetByteArrayRegion version. Now, I allway
> > tought that JNI calls imposes serious performance
> degradation, but I'm
> > not so sure now.
>
> That was JDK 1.2... We've gone a long way... It mostly
> depends on what VM you're trying it out...
>
> Pier
It is.
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.0_01-b03)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.0_01-b03, mixed mode)
If I run the 'standard' test from
http://www.str.com.au/jnibench/
Throughput in rows per second (bigger is better)
JavaRowConsumer 95556
FineGrainedJNIRowConsumer 64360
CoarseGrainedJNIRowConsumer 53946
BytePackedJNIRowConsumer 56328
SocketRowConsumer 15635
Now I've changed the CoarseGrainedJNIRowConsumer to use
GetDirectBufferAddress and I'm getting the following results:
Throughput in rows per second (bigger is better)
JavaRowConsumer 95263
FineGrainedJNIRowConsumer 64360
CoarseGrainedJNIRowConsumer 196949
BytePackedJNIRowConsumer 55379
SocketRowConsumer 15399
The direct buffer gains high througput simply couse there is no need to
copy the byte arrays.
All that was too suspicious for me, so what I've done is the simplest
posible test, and the results are far from what my expectation was.
MT.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
