Is iteration over a HashMap significantly slower than an ArrayList?

Will this piece of code be significantly slower than iteration over an ArrayList?
for(Object o : myMap.values()){
I'm expecting the map to contain roughly between 10 and 50 elements.
thanks,

madeqx wrote:
Will this piece of code be significantly slower than iteration over an ArrayList?a) No. Iteration is O(n) in both cases.
b) Irrelevant. If your design calls for a map, use a map, and if it calls for a list, use a list. The two serve entirely different purposes, and we don't choose between map and list for performance reasons.

Similar Messages

Why is InDesign CC significantly SLOWER than CS6?

InDesign CC is noticeably SLOWER in almost every aspect and functionality than is the latest version of InDesign CS6 on my computer (OSX 10.9.4, 2.66 GHz Intel Core i5, 8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3, 27 inch iMac). I have stopped using Indesign CC and now only use CS6 to create and adjust documents.
Can any staff or special users in this forum detail ADOBE's understanding or response to complaints of this nature?
This situation does not bode well for me, given the coerced direction Adobe is taking users of its creative suite (towards cloud based subscription systems).

I rebuilt all my preferences and that led to some kind of discovery. Starting InDesign CC everthing works ok (though the drawing tools are slightly slower than in CS6, creating a new page for example is much faster). All the following things mainly have an impact on drawing tools (pen tool, rectangle tool etc. placing multiple images is also affected but maybe because an image frame has to be drawn). After activating the application frame things start to slow down a bit. If I open the collapsed panels on right side things get slowed down again and the biggest hit on performance is evident when the information panel is open.
I wanted to record a screen-capture again but this is so slow that it does not represent the bug accurately. And I guess this has something to do with the user interface because all is linked to interface actions (application frame, opening/collapsing panels, showing the information panel)
Once again my system specs (when experiencing the issues half of my RAM was still free with Safari, Mail and InDesign CS6 and CC open for comparison):
InDesign CC (German)
Mac OS 10.8.4
MacBook Pro 17inch
8 GB RAM
2.66 GHz Intel Core i7
500 GB HD (200 GB free)

Macbook Pro 13" running significantly slower than usual!

I've had my Macbook Pro 13" for around 9 months now and It has been running great up until recently, where it seems to be running really slowly.
It takes quite a while to boot, and it seems that all graphics aren't loading correctly or quickly.
While opening Lunchpad, the icons can take up to 45 seconds to load, and Youtube does not seem to load correctly.
Even repairing disk permissions can take up to 1hr long.
I'm running the latest OS and all software is up to date. Ive only taken up around 30% of my hard drive space some of which has been partitioned for bootcamp.
Any ideas as to why this is happening would be appreciated.

There are so many reasons for a Mac starting to slow down that it would take forever to figure it out. Take a look at these articles, it should help (it has for me):
http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/25_ways_speed_your_mac
http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/performance.html
Make sure Flash is up-to-date since it is a horrible drain on system performance.

Firefox 29 is significantly slower than 28 on my machine. What's up ?

Specifically there is a very noticeable lag time on clicks to change tabs and also there is a lag in typing response. Response within different web pages is uniformly slow so it is not the page but likely the browser that is causing the problem, I think. Pages with interactive graphics are quite slow to respond. Closing down FF sometime helps for a while but the problem comes back after a while. very annoying.
Thanks for any help.
Windows 7
64bit AMD 6 core

It is possible that your security software (firewall, anti-virus) blocks or restricts Firefox or the plugin-container process without informing you, possibly after detecting changes (update) to the Firefox program.
Remove all rules for Firefox and the plugin-container from the permissions list in the firewall and let your firewall ask again for permission to get full, unrestricted, access to internet for Firefox and the plugin-container process and the updater process.
See:
*https://support.mozilla.org/kb/Server+not+found
*https://support.mozilla.org/kb/Firewalls
*https://support.mozilla.org/kb/fix-problems-connecting-websites-after-updating
Start Firefox in [[Safe Mode|Safe Mode]] to check if one of the extensions (Firefox/Tools > Add-ons > Extensions) or if hardware acceleration is causing the problem (switch to the DEFAULT theme: Firefox/Tools > Add-ons > Appearance).
*Do NOT click the Reset button on the Safe Mode start window.
*https://support.mozilla.org/kb/Safe+Mode
*https://support.mozilla.org/kb/Troubleshooting+extensions+and+themes

Crystal report run from ASP code significantly slower than when run in CRS

We have CRS XI R2. I developed a report that contains several on-demand sub-reports. The report and sub-reports are very fast when run directly from CRS. However, when I run from ASP (users run a link from the intranet), it takes 4 times longer (1 second on CRS, vs. 5-10 seconds on intranet). The report takes longer, bringing up a sub-report takes longer and paging through sub-reports take longer. What can be done to improve the speed of the report that is using the ASP code? I used a sample program provided at this support site to develop the report and it is pretty basic code. The only time I have a problem is when I have many sub-reports. Since they are on-demand, I do not know why this would matter.

This has been created as an incident with SAP support. Things that you will want to check is making sure that you handle the postback to the code as you do not need to run your entire code on every postback. This will help performance after the original load.
One other thing is to compare performance with the viewer within Infoview that uses the same backend server as your application, ie PSReportFactory uses the page server, so you'll want to test with the DHTML viewer. RAS code (reportclientdocument) uses the Report Application Server so you will want to test with the Advanced DHTML viewer.

Safari significantly slower than Chrome!

Since purchasing my mid 13 macbook air, I've always used firefox and then chrome. Recently, I have really wanted to use Safari as I have seen several posts about the performance and battery life benefits. After using Safari for a few days, I find performance is pitiful compared to Chrome. On average, website will take several seconds longer to load up on Safari. I have tried emptying the cache, deleting all history and also disabling plugins (I used adblock and roboform). None of it has made a difference so far. I really want to like Safari but it's proving to be difficult. Any other recommendations for what I can do to improve performance? Thanks for any help!

Go step by step by step and test.
1. Power off the router. Unplug it from the wall. Wait a while.
    Plug it back to the wall. Power the router on. Wait until all the lights are lit properly. It will take a while.
    Restart the computer.
    Start up in Safe Mode.
    http://support.apple.com/kb/PH14204
2. Delete Caches.db
    Close all windows and quit all applications.
    Hold "option" key down and click "Go" menu in the Finder menu bar.
    Select "Library" from the dropdown.
    Library > Caches > com.apple.Safari > Caches.db
    Right click the Caches.db file and select "Move To Trash.
    Close windows and relaunch Safari.
3. Empty Caches
    Safari > Preference > Advanced
    Checkmark the box for "Show Develop menu in menu bar".
    Develop menu will appear in the Safari menu bar.
    Click Develop and select "Empty Caches" from the dropdown.
4. Delete Cookies
    Safari > Preferences > Privacy > Cookies and other website data:
    Click “Remove All Website Data”.
5. Safari > Preferences > Extensions
    Turn off Extensions if any and launch Safari again to test.
    Turn on those one by one and test.

Iterating over the Values returned from a HashMap

Hi,
I have a HashMap which stores some Strings as Keys and their corresponding Values are a Vector of Strings.
for eg. one (Key, Value) pair is
(String1, [StringA, StringB, StringC, ........])
I understand that I can read the Vector Values by iterating over the HashMap using the ".entrySet()" and "Map.Entry" operations.
My problem is I am not able to iterate through the Vector values returned by the ".getValue( )" method.
can anyone please give some hints as to where I am commiting an error, or if I need to cast my values in some manner to iterate over them?
thanks in advance

can anyone please give some hints as to where I am commiting an errorSomewhere in your code. Post the smallest complete example which demonstrates the problem, then people may be able to give more specific help.

[SOLVED] Iteration over a BPM Object.

Hi guys, here i'm trying to solve a problem. May be simple, but i cant iterate over a BPM object without using the fuego taglibs.
I need to iterate over the object X. The X object have one attribute, called itens, that is a group with values.
In my JSP, using the code, works:
<tr><td>Objeto.codigo:</td><td><f:fieldValue att="x.code" onlyValue="true"/></td></tr>
<tr><td>Objeto.nome:</td><td><f:fieldValue att="x.name" onlyValue="true"/></td></tr>
<tr><td>Objeto.item1:</td><td><f:fieldValue att="x.itens[0].description" onlyValue="true"/></td></tr>
I have tried a conjuction with a <c:forEach> to iterate over the x.itens attribute without success, like this
<c:forEach var="item" items="${x.itens}">
${item.description}
</c:forEach>
With JSP EL, there's a way to access this attribute without workarounds?
Thanks!
Thiago
Edited by: user10128107 on 08/01/2009 04:04
It was the use of the core taglib...
Edited by: user10128107 on 08/01/2009 05:49

madeqx wrote:
Will this piece of code be significantly slower than iteration over an ArrayList?a) No. Iteration is O(n) in both cases.
b) Irrelevant. If your design calls for a map, use a map, and if it calls for a list, use a list. The two serve entirely different purposes, and we don't choose between map and list for performance reasons.

Why is Time Capsule Internet Slower than Belkin Router?

My Time Capsule is conneted via Ethernet to my Belkin Wireless router and is serving as my wireless backup drive.
I am extending the Time Capsule "network" via an AirPort Express in order to boost the signal over distance.
However I find consistently that when I log into the Time Capsule, my internet access is significantly slower than if I access it over the Belkin wireless router, whether I use the Airport Express or not.
I've also found that logging into the Belkin from my Mac to do my Time Capsule backups seem to run considerably faster and have fewer "stalls" than when going direct to the Time Capsule, which also seems quite strange.
Is there some reason for this? Something in my settings conflicting? One would assume that with the Mac going directly to the Time Capsule which is connected directly via Ethernet, that it would be faster than going through the 3rd party Belkin router, or at least no different.

Let me just get it clear..
Belkin is main router..
TC is bridged and plugged into it by ethernet.
Express is doing extend wireless to the TC over 5ghz.
Now there is a couple of misunderstandings..
The Time Capsule is set for the 5GHz band ONLY to avoid conflict with the numerous 2.4GHz radios in close proximity, including the Belkin, automatic channel selection.
TC is not able to shut off the 2.4ghz.. even if you don't use it.. it will work.
So it is better to set it up and use it on fixed wireless channel out of the way. Indeed if it is some distance from the belkin rather than right next to it.. you can use roaming network setup. Both Belkin and TC use the same ssid ie wireless name.. same security ie WPA2 AES = WPA2 Personal. Same security password.
But different channel.. IMHO it is better to lock the wireless channel. Set TC to 11 and belkin to 1.
Wireless channel on 5ghz is less of an issue but I recommend lower end channels.. ie <40.
Extending wireless on 5ghz is often poor.. the range is actually bad.. and link speed can be worse than using 2.4ghz.. so I would carefully test the speed using wireless on 2.4ghz and then on 5ghz. .If possible only use 5ghz on single hop up close to the TC.
Any wireless that does double hop.. ie TC--Express--computer will go at half the speed of TC--computer, if they link at the same speed. This is caused by double hop wireless being highly inefficient way to extend wireless.
If the TC is faster by ethernet via the Belkin than via the TC I would find that difficult to follow and you will need to give me exact model number of the belkin.
That the belkin 2.4ghz wireless is faster than the TC is no surprise.. apple limit wireless to N lite at 2.4ghz.. whereas the belkin is probably 300mbit. And better signal.
You have heaps of testing to do.

Internet speed significantly slower using Time Capsule

I have a 50MB internet connection and a Time Capsule. I use the Time Capsule to wirelessly connect my iMac to the internet. I also have a desktop PC with an ethernet connection to the Time Capsule. Lately the internet speeds have been very slow when I connect via my Time Capsule. I experience slow speeds from the wireless and wired connection. On speedtest.net, I can't even get the test page to load. On my PC, when I unplug my ethernet cable from my Time Capsule, and plug it directly into my modem, I get fast 50MB speeds on speedtest.net. When I plug the cable back into my Time Capsule, the speed is slow again.
Does anyone know why the Time Capsule is causing my internet speed to be significantly slower than connecting directly to the modem? And more importantly, how can I fix the issue?
Thanks, Brian

Hi Brian,
Every couple of months I also experience the very slow wi-fi connection through Time Capsule (currently on firmware 7.6.1 but the problem has occurred also with older firmwares).
I have been able to fix the slow connection this way:
Test your laptop's wi-fi speed to verify the problem. For example, I'm getting only 2 MBit/s download speed at speedtest.net when the Time Capsule slows down, although my operator provides super-fast 100 MBit/s connection.
Detach the (Internet) Ethernet cable from the Time Capsule.
Connect the same (Internet) Ethernet cable directly from ADSL or Ethernet wall plug to your MacBook (or any other computer that experiences the slow wi-fi connection).
Run the Speedtest.net test again. Now you should obviously get "full" Internet speed without Time Capsule (for me it means about 75 Mbit/s, never quite the same the operators promise ;).
Detach the Ethernet cable from your laptop and connect it back to the Time Capsule (wait until the green light on Time Capsule). Test again with Speedtest.net. (Now I get around 60 Mbits/s over Wi-Fi, that is OK). Interestingly the problem now disappears and stays fixed for several weeks or even a few months, after which I simply repeat this process when needed.
I am currently running Time Capsule firmware 7.6.1 but the issue has happened on later versions also. Perhaps you will experience it after running 7.5.2 after a few weeks or months?
For background information I am running on the same Time Capsule's Wi-Fi network:
A white MacBook with OSX 10.7.3
Samsung laptop PC with Windows XP
Two iPhones (3 and old 4)
Playstation 3
Apple TV
Hope this helps!

Why does my Mac hang at some point? The startup is slower than usual and sometime's the graphic glitches occur. please help!

My mountain lion OS hangs like windows does and sumtimes have visual glitches like the drop down menu's are half visible. Sometimes it slows down at every point. And its just 2 months old. Please help.

Isolating Issues
Do a backup, using either Time Machine or a cloning program, to ensure files/data can be recovered. Two backups are better than one.
Try a restart.
Run Disk Utility/Repair Permissions. Run until it reports no errors. If there is a recurring error, see the article on what permission errors can be ignored.
Disk Utility
Disk Utility Repair Permissions You Can Safely Ignore
Try setting up another admin user account to see if the same problem continues. If Back-to-My Mac is selected in System Preferences, the Guest account will not work. The intent is to see if it is specific to one account or a system wide problem. This account can be deleted later.
Isolating an issue by using another user account
If the problem is still there, try booting into the Safe Mode. Shut down the computer and then power it back up. Immediately after hearing the startup chime, hold down the shift key and continue to hold it until the gray Apple icon and a progress bar appear. The boot up is significantly slower than normal. This will reset some caches, forces a directory check, and disables all startup and login items, among other things. If the system operates normally, there may be 3rd party applications which are causing a problem. Try deleting/disabling the third party applications after a restart. For each disable/delete, you will need to restart if you don't do them all at once.
Safe Mode
Safe Mode - About
General information.
Isolating issues in Mac OS X
Troubleshooting Permission Issues
Step by Step to Fix Your Mac
Upgrade Nightmares

Sun JVM seems much slower than MS JVM

Hello, I was wondering which one is preferred. Whenever I use Sun's JVM 1.5.0, it seems to be significantly slower than MS's. Are these two almost equivalent, or is the Sun JVM far better than MS's? Thanks.

Sun-JVm just starts slower but has a significant better runtime performance...
Trust me - I have to create a big application that runs on both and MSJVM is definitifly crap - it justs starts slow and needs less memory for small programs...
btw. msjvm isnt really supported even by mircososft..

Wired slower than wireless- how can that be? WRT54GS-6

I cannot understand how this is possible. On my Wireless-G Broadband Router with SpeedBooster - WRT54GS - 6, the ethernet port is significantly slower than the the wireless? Do I have to change some setting?

When you say that your "ethernet" is slower that your "wireless" , what do you mean ? IS the ethernet slower that the wireless when you are surfing the web, or is it slow when you want to transfer files from one PC to another in your network ?
In case your ethernet is slower than the wireless when surfing the web,I'd suggest that you upgrade the firmware of the router.
Also ensure that you do not have any kind of firewalls running on your PC.

PS CS3 much slower than CS2 on Intel Mac. I don't get it.

Yes, very very strange.
I work with very large files, so I just got a spiffy new Mac Pro. It's my first Intel machine, so I expected that CS2 would drag a little bit, due to Rosetta. In fact, moving from one processor to eight of them seems to have much more than compensated. Nevertheless, I ordered CS4 and while I wait I downloaded the demo of CS3.
I expected that CS3 would fly (no Rosetta) but have found my test tasks taking an inordinate amount of time... much slower than CS2 on the same Xeon workstation, and slower than CS2 on my old iMac (single 2.1GHz G5)
Since I work with extremely large files, I got a hardware RAID5 made up of four 15,000RPM SAS drives. I can't get enough RAM to avoid using scratch disk, so I attacked the biggest performance bottleneck. I did get 8GB of RAM; would have gotten more, but I read that it won't matter until CS goes 64-bit in CS5 at the earliest.
The rest of it: dual quad-core 2.8GHz "Woodcrest" Xeon processors, NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card, OS X 10.5.5, all updates (Apple and Adobe) applied as of 6pm Wednesday October 8th.
I'm running two tests as my benchmark: open a file (PSD created with CS2, 75" x 75" at 400ppi, two layers, RGB with one additional channel) and resize to 75" x 75" at 800ppi. Once that is done, I rotate the new, massive file counterclockwise 18.5 degrees.
On my old setup, 2.1GHz SP G5 iMac with CS2, these tasks took 38m 30s and 1h 33m 22s respectively.
New machine with CS2: 10m 09s and 29m 14s respectively
New machine with CS3: 42m 38s and 1h 36m 24s
(above tests run repeatedly: these numbers are the fastest numbers for each configuration)
I have nothing else running for these tests, except for Activity Monitor. What I've observed with Activity Monitor: the old G5 was pegged at (or very near) 100% CPU the whole time. Mac Pro with CS2, Photoshop ran most of the time on one CPU at a time, but spiked up as high as 250% CPU usage just for Photoshop.
I haven't seen Photoshop CS3 use more than 80% of one processor the whole time on the Mac Pro. Mostly it sits around 35%.
One more informal test: if I open that same file and downsample from 400ppi to 200ppi, CS2 does it in 1m 40s. CS3: 6m 57s. I don't have the iMac any more so I can't tell you how long it would take there.
In both CS2 and CS3 the scratch disk is my startup volume, but it's a RAID. I can't add any more drives except for external drives. I could have configured it to one dedicated system drive and a second scratch volume made up of the remaining three drives, but I consulted with people who know RAID better than I do who agreed that since everything is going through the SCSI controller and everything gets written to multiple drives in order to make it faster that I'd get a performance hit by splitting the RAID into two volumes, even if multiple processes are trying to get at the same drive array. Even adding a Firewire 800 drive for scratch would be slower than using the RAID. Or so I've been told.
So, this seems absurd. CS3 is not using Rosetta, right? So it should be flying on my machine. What on earth could I have done to a fresh CS3 (demo) install to make it slower than CS2 on my old G5? Is the CS3 demo crippled? Is there a conflict having CS2 and the CS3 demo on the same machine?
I'm stumped.

>Ya see, this is the attitude you really, really should get over. The Photoshop CS3 (10.0.1) code is just fine... it's your system (hardware/software) which, for some reason is not providing an optimal environment.
Jeff, I agree completely. You seem to be assuming that I actually think Adobe wrote bad code. In fact, I believe Adobe did NOT write bad code (and I wrote that) but that the condition that you are suggesting (CS3 being slowed by having having scratch and system on the same volume to a far greater extent than CS2) could only be caused by bad code by Adobe. Since I believe that, as you say, a universal difference of this magnitude between CS2 and CS3 would be noticed by huge numbers of users, I doubt that what I am seeing is the result of having scratch and system on the same volume.
In case I'm being less than clear:
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS2.
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS3.
On my system CS2 performs tasks three to four times faster than CS3.
ergo, either there is some problem other than scratch and system being on the same volume (perhaps something that exacerbates the scratch/system/same volume issue, OK, I accept that possibility) or else the change has been between CS2s and CS3s handling of scratch disks.
If for the sake of argument we rule out the possibility that CS3 handles the condition of scratch and system being on the same volume worse than CS2 does, the only possibility left is that there is SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH MY SYSTEM.
I am trying to find out what that other thing is. You're the one insisting that scratch and system being on the same volume is the cause of the CS3 slowdown. Accusing me of not believing that there's something wrong with my system misses the mark entirely. I ABSOLUTELY believe there is something wrong with my system.
> Your RAM tests sound pretty thorough, but if I had your large-files workflow I would buy two (or preferably 4) 4-GB sized matched RAM DIMMs, remove all the existing RAM, and install only the new RAM to further test whether or not the old RAM is anomalous.
Thanks Allen,
Actually, this is exactly what I've done, though in a different order. My system shipped with two 1GB chips. I bought two 4GB chips from OWC and installed them, and found my CS2 performance to increase significantly. It was only then that I tried installing the CS3 demo. When I found CS3 running my tests more slowly than expected, I pulled the new RAM out and tried with just the original 2GB and tested both CS2 and CS3 again. Then I took the original 2GB out, put only the new RAM in and tested CS2 and CS3 again, finding the same results. Currently I have all 10GB in the system and for the moment I'm setting aside the possibility of a problem with the RAM (or at least setting aside the possibility that the RAM chips are just plain bad) because that would indicate that both the new and the old RAM are both bad in the same way. That seems unlikely.
So I guess I'll have to drag the system down to the Genius Bar if I don't see an improvement from rearranging my hard drives.
The update there is that last night I backed up my system, and this morning I deleted my RAID5 set, blowing away everything on my system until I can restore from backup. The new configuration is 1 JBOD drive plus three drives attached as RAID0.
Unfortunately, neither of the new volumes is visible when I go to restore from backup. For the moment, this little experiment has cost me my entire system. The upshot is that it may be some more time before I have any more information to share. Even when I do get it working again, I can expect restoring to take the same 12 hours that backing up did.
I will certainly post here when I've got my system back.

Brand new Macbook Pro slower than my 2006 Macbook

I bought a new Macbook Pro last month and upgraded the RAM to 4 GB and the hard drive to 500 GB. My previous Mac was a mid-2006 Macbook with 2 GB RAM.
I was expecting it to be noticeably faster than my 2006 Macbook (which is still running Tiger/10.4), but it isn't. Two things are particularly noticeable.
1) Startup time. The 2006 Macbook is 5 or 10 seconds faster starting up.
2) Safari. Safari is a couple of seconds faster loading identical websites on the 2006 Macbook. I tried updating Safari on the Macbook Pro to the new Safari 4 beta, and that is slightly faster, but still noticeably slower than on my Macbook.
I've tried running the set of Applescripts called "Maintenance" (available on the web) to do all regular maintenance tasks.
I've run software update. Everything is up to date.
Any suggestions of other things I should be checking to try to improve the speed of my Macbook Pro are much appreciated.
I find it really mystifying that performance is so noticeably worse on a brand new, much more powerful machine.
Thanks

Thanks for the replies.
In re the OS, I personally don't see many significant improvements in OS 10.5. Sure, little things here and there, but major power improvements over 10.4 that should cause startup time to be slower? I don't see it. I'm surprised in the design phase Apple's software engineers would allow longer startup time (always one of their biggest selling point over the Windows world) in return for such things as being able to hit the space bar in the finder to open a document quickly. I'm not using Time Machine, for instance, so that shouldn't be slowing down startup... or at least actually loading it in functioning mode shouldn't be slowing things down.
In re Safari, I'm doing as scientific a test as I possibly can here at home. Both computers sitting right next to each other, connected to the same network wirelessly, clicking on the same web link at exactly the same time. My 2006 Macbook is consistently faster at loading the page. Even more, it is significantly faster at loading the page to a "usable" point. For instance, if I click on the main page of the New York Times, the 2006 Macbook will load faster and will let me scroll down much earlier in the load process. On the 2009 MBP, the page shows up a few seconds slower, and it takes another few seconds more before the spinning beach ball stops and I can scroll down on the page. This is true both with Safari 3 and 4 on the MBP.
I just find it weird that a much more powerful computer, with a "new, improved" operating system and twice the amount of RAM, is noticeably more sluggish on these really basic tasks.
My next step is to go to the Apple store and try to compare mine to some other MBPs...
I have issues with some developments at Apple recently. For instance, the gen 2 iPod shuffle strikes me as a perfect design. Does it need to be smaller? Moving the controls to the headset seems really weird to me, much less convenient than the old one. I know that comment is OT, I just am starting to wonder about some decisions at Apple.
Not enough to make me complain seriously... I still vastly prefer Apple to the other options. But that sense I had for years that somebody really smart is paying attention to all these details and getting them right... that's starting to fade away for me. On the other hand, I do not have an iPhone and I think it's clear a lot of Apple's resources are going into the iPhone these days.

Is iteration over a HashMap significantly slower than an ArrayList?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for