Return-Path: <lacostejbbc@altern.org>
Mailing-List: contact commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list commons-user@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 1506 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2003 18:00:21 -0000
Received: from virus-out.ttyl.com (193.212.240.200)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2003 18:00:21 -0000
Received: from [80.212.8.187] by virus-in.online.no with ESMTP for
 commons-user@jakarta.apache.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:00:22 +0100
Message-Id: <3E527487.6@altern.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:59:35 +0100
From: "Jerome Lacoste @ BBC" <lacostejbbc@altern.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
X-Accept-Language: en, en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jakarta Commons Users List <commons-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: StringBuffer pools and why not to use them
References: <0C072E7CC947D511AC9600A0CC734120885E2B@XEON400>
 <005001c2d76c$a542bf50$8dfb0d50@zzz> <b2tpec$r5k$1@main.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <b2tpec$r5k$1@main.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Robert Simmons wrote:

>Well now ... I think this post goes a bit far. At least he tried the task before
>advocating it. The fact is that a large number of people poorly use StringBuffer
>anyway. This could account for performance hits. The simple line of code that
>you see all the time like:
>
>StringBuffer buf = new StringBuffer(500);
>buf.append("This is a test under " + System.getProperty("os.arch") +
>                  " operating system, version " +
>System.getProperty("os.version"));
>
>This code has a serious problem. Since you are so busy calling others idiots,
>can you tell us all why ?
>
There are two bad things:
- too much allocation
- no use of the append() methods

Both make the calls slower. On my machine, reducing the size of the 
StringBuffer to 80 (*) helps as much as using append() correctly.

(*) could have used a different value there. Just knowing that doMe() 
returns a String of length 54 on my VM

Looping 100000 times around a call to these methods

  public static String doMe()
  {
    StringBuffer buf = new StringBuffer(500);
    buf.append("This is a test under " + System.getProperty("os.arch") +
                      " operating system, version " +
    System.getProperty("os.version"));
    return buf.toString();
  }

  public static String doMeBetter()
  {
    StringBuffer buf = new StringBuffer(500);
    buf.append("This is a test under 
").append(System.getProperty("os.arch"));
    buf.append(" operating system, version 
").append(System.getProperty("os.version"));
    return buf.toString();
  }

  public static String doMeEvenBetter()
  {
    StringBuffer buf = new StringBuffer(80);
    buf.append("This is a test under 
").append(System.getProperty("os.arch"));
    buf.append(" operating system, version 
").append(System.getProperty("os.version"));
    return buf.toString();
  }

Results:


DoMe() count: 4500
DoMeBetter() count: 3234
DoMeEvenBetter() count: 1704
DoMe() count: 4500
DoMeBetter() count: 3218
DoMeEvenBetter() count: 1703
DoMe() count: 4563
DoMeBetter() count: 3203
DoMeEvenBetter() count: 1734

>-- Robert
>
>"Chris Duprat" <christopher.duprat@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>news:005001c2d76c$a542bf50$8dfb0d50@zzz...
>  
>
>>Wasting of time. You shouldn't have the idea of implementing a pool for such
>>objects because of their high availability. By adding another level you just
>>reach the performance issue which is critical for that kind of objects.
>>
>>You're an Idiot ;-)
>>http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
>>
BTW, click on on the page anywhere, drag your mouse over the button and 
release click at once to win ;)