Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of simone.tripodi@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.160.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: simone.tripodi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANrzj0mVWWDVN-i-zPva2iSKN=Ro96wVfER9mQ+=hwpuUO6QOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CANrzj0kZNqyBJw73SvNB9MB5NsxH7qCjfYj5b1XQp1OwZUPDOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAqLGLP2WzRFvyKFXDWXZqTPk7NcT=th_Kh6f1EWjx3D9wcBbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANrzj0m_2_NRDTVcJiExku3fYv-4WgsRSOoPvbQew3dzh1d=zg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANrzj0mVWWDVN-i-zPva2iSKN=Ro96wVfER9mQ+=hwpuUO6QOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:17:22 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAAqLGLNW6O_okjX+M_RfdTht7qULhzAZ0=Q5gnzAQLwPtNEJQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OGNL] Performance analysis
From: Simone Tripodi <simonetripodi@apache.org>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Mau,
that for the explanation, that really helps on clarifying the graph!!!

I have an idea about merging the tests in trunk with a profile
approach that I already submitted for the Disruptor project[1] - they
have performance/benchmark tests too - if it is fine for you I can
work on it -  not today that's Rugby day, maybe tomorrow :)

All the best and have a nice WE,
Simo

[1] http://code.google.com/p/disruptor/issues/detail?id=3D2

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/


On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Maurizio Cucchiara
<mcucchiara@apache.org> wrote:
> I almost forgot there are even old vs commons comparison. Stay tuned :)
>
> Twitter =C2=A0 =C2=A0 :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
> G+ =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:https://plus.google.com/10790371154=
0963855921
> Linkedin =C2=A0 =C2=A0:http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
>
> Maurizio Cucchiara
>
>
>
> On 22 October 2011 09:58, Maurizio Cucchiara <mcucchiara@apache.org> wrot=
e:
>> Thank you Simo,
>> Ok, I realized after that the graph needs at least a short explanation:
>> In that test I have tried to test every caches which I re-engineered.
>> In the graph you mentioned, there are depicted 3 different kind of
>> cache implementations:
>> 1. Concurrent HashMap (CHM)
>> 2. Thread-safe HashMap (HM)
>> 3. Reentrant Read Write Lock (RRWL)
>>
>> As you will notice, there are some cases where RRWL is faster, other
>> where CHM and so on.
>> So there is no yet a real winner approach, though, at very quick look,
>> CHM seems to be the slower one (my guess is that it's the only
>> not-fully thread safe).
>>
>> To answer your question about projects merging, they surely could work
>> under the same project, my only concern is about the execution time.
>> At the moment I'm writing the whole execution time is near 50 seconds
>> (currently the non-benchmark side take more or less 20 seconds).
>> Furthermore the benchmark tests don't give you an answer in term of
>> correctness (aside from the concurrency issues), =C2=A0ATM the only
>> motivation behind them is performance measurement.
>> Next time I could check the hit/miss ratio.
>> Twitter =C2=A0 =C2=A0 :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
>> G+ =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:https://plus.google.com/1079037115=
40963855921
>> Linkedin =C2=A0 =C2=A0:http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
>>
>> Maurizio Cucchiara
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org