Strange AIR performance; == faster than ===

Hi.
I have been hunting down some strange memory usage in one of our games, and tracked it down to numbers being compared to 0.0 in a loop.
I have concentrated the observations down to a small profile snippet.
Observations:
1) I expected the first two profiles to take the same amount of time as everything is typed. But comparing a Number that is a natural is a LOT faster. (only true on desktop and android).
Why is this, is the jitted versions storing Numbers that are natural (whole numbers) as integers, and thus causing a log of type conversion (and memory allocations)?
2) I have been told (and experienced on iOS) that using the === operator is faster than == when a type coercion is possible, test 1+2 vs. 3+4 shows that this is not always the case on some of the platforms.
Is this normal? have I messed up something when building my air apps? If this is reproducible, can somebody with better knowledge of the internals of the AIR runtime explain when it's better to use === over == (for performance).
private var _unused:Number = 0;
private function profileNumberCompare():void
   var t0:int = getTimer();
   _unused += profileEqEqEq(0.1);
   var t1:int = getTimer();
   _unused += profileEqEqEq(1.0);
   var t2:int = getTimer();
   _unused += profileEqEq(0.1);
   var t3:int = getTimer();
   _unused += profileEqEq(1.0);
   var t4:int = getTimer();
   trace(t1 - t0);
   trace(t2 - t1);
   trace(t3 - t2);
   trace(t4 - t3);
private function profileEqEqEq(inc:Number):Number
   var x:Number = 0.0;
   var z:Number = 0.0;
   for(var i:int = 0; i < 10000000; i++)
   if(x === 0.0) z += 1;
   x += inc;
   return z;
private function profileEqEq(inc:Number):Number
   var x:Number = 0.0;
   var z:Number = 0.0;
   for(var i:int = 0; i < 10000000; i++)
   if(x == 0.0) z += 1;
   x += inc;
   return z;
Results:
Desktop, adl  (E5530 @ 2.4GHz):
1411
171
68
71
ipad4:
52
53
53
55
nexus5:
1230
373
148
146

Since your iPad is only 4 months old, I'd make an appointment at your local apple store and have them check it out.

Similar Messages

  • Why is wireless performance faster than wired WRT54G v8?

    Why is wireless performance faster than wired WRT54G v8?

    Have you checked the different wired computer..? or on all the wired computers are having same problem...?

  • Air faster than imac

    i have a 1.6 ghz 80 gb air and it is faster than my imac 2.0 ghz 250 gb 1 gb ram why? thanks

    Your MBA has twice the RAM at 2 GB than your imac at 1 GB. If you exceed your physical RAM, then the disc is utilized more for virtual RAM and is thus slower.
    All MBAs have 2 GB RAM standard and the bus is also faster than some older imacs.
    Use your MBA happily with the increased memory and speed.
    Message was edited by: Rhyd

  • Very slow network performance - with uploads faster than downloads

    I just got new ISP - 100 mbps through a Cat5 line. It checks out when I run ethernet directly to a computer. However, I want a totally wireless network.
    I have a Time Capsule attached by ethernet and that is my main network device. I also have two airport Xpress' to extend the network.
    I am getting, on average, 16 mbps! And, upload speed is generally higher.
    The Time Capsule is about 2 yrs old, but it is an "n" device.
    Anybody have any idea what the problem might be? I was considering getting a new extreme and using the Time Capsule as an extender instead of the expresses because, as I understand it, the express has one band only. Would that be better? Mainly, I want to get the speed up to what it should be.
    Is there some way to trouble shoot the Time Capsule?
    Others in my building with D Link or Linksys routers are getting over 80 mbps wirelessly, so I know it is possible.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated. I want to stay with Apple products, but if not possible I will get another brand of router.
    Thanks,
    Deanna

    Deannanel wrote:
    So, William, I got an Airport Extreme. Within 20 or so feet of it I am now getting 85 to 95 Mbps!
    Great!
    However, in the far reaches of the house, signal is low and I have not been able to extent network with either the Time Capsule or an Airport Express. They just won't connect.
    Based on the earlier numbers you gave me, you won't be able to establish a reliable connection "in the far reaches of the house", as it's too far away from the base router. You'll either have to (1) run Ethernet to that remote unit, (2) use PowerLine units as an Ethernet extender, or (3) put the remote unit closer to the base unit.
    I reset the Time Capsule a couple of times. I noticed that both devices are automatically set to channel 157.
    That's a 5 GHz channel. That band can give faster throughput, but the signal strength falls off faster than in the 2.4 GHz band.
    The Extreme has 2 channels - 2 and 157. I do not have the option of changing the channel on either of the other devices.
    That makes sense, if they're configured to extend an existing network. They must communicate on the same channel as the base station they're extending.

  • Anyone else haveing issues where Motion 5 performs worse than Motion 4?

    I'm having an issue where even simple particle emitters playback slowly.  I can create the same simple effect in 4 and it plays back in real time.
    I even saved a test file in 4 (which ran real time), and when I open it in 5 it plays back slower.  What gives?

    I´m having a strange issues with Motion 5 performance:
    In my iMac 2010 (i3 @ 3,06 ghz, Radeon 4670 256 mb and 8 gb) Motion 5 is about 20-25% faster than Motion 4.
    For example, when rendering the PulseHD Open Motion 4 takes 2:30 mins and Motion 5 takes 2:00 mins.
    The strange results come from my Macbook Pro 2010 (i5 @ 2,4 ghz, Geforce GT 330m and 8 gb also):
    With the same template this computer takes 3:20 mins in Motion 4 and about 6:30 mins in Motion 5!!!! So near the double.
    Even more strange: if I make a ram preview in Motion 5 with this same template and settings that I used in the final render it only takes 2:51 mins and Motion 4 is slower, because it takes 3:25 mins!!!!!!
    I forgot to say that in all the cases the render quality was set to normal and motion blur was turned on with 8 samples.
    So, it´s clear that Motion 5 needs an update as does FCP X, because in my computers it crashes a lot.

  • Older Macbook Pro VS. Air Performance?

    I currently have this MBP:
      Processor Name:          Intel Core i7
      Processor Speed:          2.66 GHz
      Number Of Processors:          1
      Total Number Of Cores:          2
      L2 Cache (per core):          256 KB
      L3 Cache:          4 MB
      Memory:          8 GB
      Processor Interconnect Speed:          4.8 GT/s
    Would I notice much difference in performance between this Mac and a new Macbook Air
    1.8GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7
    4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
    256GB flash storage
    Is the video card in the Air bad? I didn't even see it listed in the store.
    Thanks.

    Relative performance is dependent upon the particular application of each computer.
    Moreover, you don't indicate the type of storage drive on your MBP.
    With the MBP having a conventional HDD, and the MBA having an SSD, the Air will perform a variety of functions faster than the MBP, i.e. booting, application launching. These are operations in which the SSD's speed advantage will shine.
    However, if you are doing a complex CPU or GPU dependent operation such as decoding/encoding a video file, playing certain types of games, or manipulating data within memory, the MBP will perform these tasks with greater alacrity.
    The MBA can't be outfitted with memory beyond 4 GB, whereas the MBP can have at least double that amount, if inclined. The MBP can also be upgraded to an SSD, in which there would no longer be any deficit, no matter the task.
    In essence, the stock MBA could be quite a bit faster for some folks than a stock MBP. However, the MBP has the potential to be the overall winner, if the user so inclines as to outfit the MBP in a net superior configuration.
    That being said, the question can only be answered straightforwardly if we know more about your situation.

  • SQL7 is 60% faster than Oracle8051EE in my test

    Hi people,
    I did a simple test over the weekend and want to share with
    u. "SQL7 is Faster than Oracle8051 by 60% in my little test".
    Perhape somebody can point out what I had not setup correctly.
    one same PC installed with multi boot:
    Microsoft platform
    ==================
    NT4 Service Pack 4
    SQL7
    JDK1.2
    JDBC from SQL7 installation
    Linux Oracle Platform
    =====================
    RedHat linux 5.2
    Oracle8051EE
    jdk1.1.7A
    jdbc ( oci ) from Oracle8051EE installation
    I used identical Java program ( almost identical, except the
    connection string) to insert 100,000 record into both platform(
    one platform at a time). The table has 2 fields ( on NT name
    varchar(50) and Address varchar(1024). On Oracle, is varchar2
    with the same size ). No index is created in both platform. And
    Linux Oracle took 32 minutes, NT SQL7 took only 13 minutes.
    I were hoping that it is the different version of JDK that
    contribute to the compareingly slowness in Linux Oracle.
    Any one else can share some light ?
    Regards
    Nathan
    [email protected]
    null

    Hi,
    please don'feel offended, but I think the problem with these
    sort of benchmarks are:
    a. It's not obvious the servers (in both cases) are optimally
    tuned for the task to be done
    b. The task is far too simple to state that SQL7 is 60% faster
    than ORACLE 8
    c. I don't know any installation where inserting 100000 rows
    is the main business for the DBMS installed. Normally there's
    a mix of about 85% selecting and 15% writing data (these
    percentages may differ for your installation). So if you
    want to test the performance of a DBMS, a bit of selecting
    data wouldn't harm your benchmark
    d. You did a single user benchmark (I assume). An important
    issue is the behaviour of a system under multi-user load.
    (NT is very strong at this point ;-)
    e. The outcome of these benchmarks is irrelevant (see above)
    but the psychological effect isn't ! It is the kind of
    messages salesmen sprinkle around. A lot of hot air but
    nothing behind it.
    without wanting to be offensive, I think the correct title for
    your message should have been:
    I managed to configure an SQL7 and an ORACLE 8 in such way, that
    an insert-job of 100000 rows is about 60% faster on the SQL7
    engine. (I admit, this doesn't sound very spectacular)
    Ronald
    Nathan Phan (guest) wrote:
    : Hi people,
    : I did a simple test over the weekend and want to share with
    : u. "SQL7 is Faster than Oracle8051 by 60% in my little test".
    : Perhape somebody can point out what I had not setup correctly.
    : one same PC installed with multi boot:
    : Microsoft platform
    : ==================
    : NT4 Service Pack 4
    : SQL7
    : JDK1.2
    : JDBC from SQL7 installation
    : Linux Oracle Platform
    : =====================
    : RedHat linux 5.2
    : Oracle8051EE
    : jdk1.1.7A
    : jdbc ( oci ) from Oracle8051EE installation
    : I used identical Java program ( almost identical, except the
    : connection string) to insert 100,000 record into both platform(
    : one platform at a time). The table has 2 fields ( on NT name
    : varchar(50) and Address varchar(1024). On Oracle, is varchar2
    : with the same size ). No index is created in both platform. And
    : Linux Oracle took 32 minutes, NT SQL7 took only 13 minutes.
    : I were hoping that it is the different version of JDK that
    : contribute to the compareingly slowness in Linux Oracle.
    : Any one else can share some light ?
    : Regards
    : Nathan
    : [email protected]
    null

  • BIA performance less than aggregate

    Hi
    We are getting strange test results with SAP BIA. The data base read time with BIA is more than that of Aggregates. Dosent BIA enhance query performance?
    We have been testing BIA performance on simple queries with no calculations and still getting these results –
    Query     BIA     Agg
    Query1  0.906   0.219
    Query2  1.219   0.26
    Query3  1.266   0.828
    Query4  1.406  1.125
    Regards
    Niranjana

    Hi Niranjana,
    the times you are measuring are about 1 second .. that's virtually measuring the "overhead" (network, RFC etc.).
    Try comparing the average of all queries with aggregates against BIA. I am pretty sure that there'll be a significant improvement.
    No one should expect that EVERY BIA query is faster than a traditional aggregate query. There'll always be 'perfect' aggregates (matching exactly the query) that might be faster than BIA (just assume having an aggregate that already summarizes 1 billion records to a few ones) - I bet this is faster than the BIA. However, also compare the effort for aggregate maintenance ..
    Cheers,
    Alex

  • Can this class run fast than Hotspot ?

    My case in Sun hotspot is almost 2 times fast than jRockit. It's very strange.
    package com.telegram;
    public class byteutils {
         public final static byte[] bytea = { 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57,
                   58, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 };
         public byteutils() {
              super();
         * convert length = 2L letters Hexadecimal String to length = L bytes
         * Examples: [01][23][45][67][89][AB][CD][EF]
         public static byte[] convertBytes(String hexStr) {
              byte[] a = null;
              try {
                   a = hexStr.getBytes("ASCII");
              } catch (java.io.UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
                   e.printStackTrace();
              final int len = a.length / 2;
              byte[] b = new byte[len];
              int idx = 0;
              int h = 0;
              int l = 0;
              for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
                   h = a[idx++];
                   l = a[idx++];
                   h = (h < 65) ? (h - 48) : (h - 55);
                   l = (l < 65) ? (l - 48) : (l - 55);
                   // if ((h < 0) || (l < 0)) return null;
                   b[i] = (byte) ((h << 4) | l);
              a = null;
              return b;
         public static String convertHex(byte[] arr_b) {
              if (arr_b == null)
                   return null;
              final int len = arr_b.length;
              byte[] byteArray = new byte[len * 2];
              int idx = 0;
              int h = 0;
              int l = 0;
              int v = 0;
              for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
                   v = arr_b[i] & 0xff;
                   l = v & 0xf;
                   h = v >> 4;
                   byteArray[idx++] = bytea[h];
                   byteArray[idx++] = bytea[l];
              String r = null;
              try {
                   r = new String(byteArray, "ASCII");
              } catch (java.io.UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
                   e.printStackTrace();
              } finally {
                   byteArray = null;
              return r;
         public static void main(String[] argv) {
              byte[] a = new byte[0x10000];
              for (int c = 0; c < 0x10000; c++) {
                   a[c] = (byte) (c % 256);
              String s = "";
              int LOOP = 10000;
              long l = System.currentTimeMillis();
              for (int i = 0; i < LOOP; i++) {
                   s = convertHex(a);
                   a = convertBytes(s);
              l = System.currentTimeMillis() - l;
              double d = l / (double) LOOP;
              System.out.println("" + d + "ms.");
    }

    Thanks! Your code is essentially a microbenchmark testing the performance of sun.nio.cs.US_ASCII.Decoder.decodeLoop() and encodeLoop(), with ~35% and ~30% spent in those two methods respectively. I have verified the behavior (i.e. Sun is faster than JRockit). Due to the microbenchmark nature, it may not affect a larger running program, but it may merit a closer look regardless. I have forwarded to the JRockit perf team for analysis.
    -- Henrik

  • New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

    So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
    I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
    Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally.  I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC.  Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
    And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
    I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

    That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
    I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
    Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth.  It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
    Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
    This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively).  Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

  • Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

    A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
    The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
    It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
    I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
    Thanks for any suggestions.
    -Vincent

    So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
    That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
    At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
    Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
    Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
    I've written a better explaination here
    click for text doc

  • Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

    Hey,
    Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
    Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
    iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
    About 20-100 layers
    A combination of vector and bitmap layers
    Many of the layers use layer styles
    On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
    This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
    So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
    Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
    Thanks for your help!

    BOILERPLATE TEXT:
    Note that this is boilerplate text.
    If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
    such as your platform (Mac or Win),
    exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
    your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
    the type of file you were working on,
    machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
    what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
    what error message(s) you receive,
    if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
    if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
    etc.,
    someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
    a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
    Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
    Thanks!

  • Why is JVM faster than CLR?

    hi
    i wrote a N-body algorithm in both Java and C# (shown below). i executed it using .NET CLR and JDK1.4.1. in JDK it is twice as fast as .NET (on win2000). now i am trying to find out why is it so??
    the interesting thing is that i ran some other algorithms like FFT and graph alogrithms, and they are faster in .NET. so i want to find is there some operation in the below algorithm that is making it run faster in JDK.
    in general, what can the possible reasons be for JVM to run faster than CLR?
    thanks
    double G = 6.6726E-11;
    double difference = 0.0;
    for(int i=0; i<numBodies; i++)
         accelarations[i] = 0.0;
         for(int j=0; j<numBodies; j++)
              if(i != j)
              difference = radii[i] - radii[j];
              if(difference != 0)
              accelarations[i] += masses/(Math.pow(difference, 2));
         accelarations[i] *= G;

    Interesting N-Body problem that treats accelerations as scalars.
    Anyway, if there is no optimisation for small integer powers in the Math.pow() method, then I'd expect almost all the time is used there or in its equivalent in .NET. Hardly a meaningful test of relative performance.
    Try using (difference * difference) instead.
    Sylvia.

  • Web Report - ABAP Vs JAVA engine - ABAP 10 times faster than JAVA

    Guys,
    I want to share what we found in our project and see if any of you have insights
    into our findings.We are on NW2004S SP14 and we are moving to SP15 in a couple of weeks.We created query, developed WAD for it and executing the WAD takes for this query takes 22 secs (Vs 2 secs using ABAP) the query output has 1 million records and most of the actions we take from that point on like right click on account takes 20 secs (Vs 0 secs/instant using ABAP) , drilldown to level 4 of account hierarchy takes 58 secs (Vs 5 secs using ABAP), drilldown on cost center level 6 takes 42 secs (Vs 4 secs using ABAP), , right click on cost center takes 32 secs (Vs 3 secs using ABAP), ..etc.
    Basically every action we take in the JAVA report takes an average of  28 secs.There are 9 aggregates built on the cube that are barely hit by this query but the same query performing same actions with same selections hit the aggregates many many times.The questions I have is why is ABAP so fast compared to JAVA ? What is true explanation behind this behavior ? What are the dis-advantages by using ABAP engine ? Users are loving the performance and features of ABAP while they weren't really on board with the original JAVA report (as it was slow). ABAP is sure enough 10 times faster than JAVA. Query/Query Properties are exactly the same in ABAP and JAVA.Please explain.
    Cheers
    RT

    Hi All,
    Thanks to all you for your responses. I appreciate your time for going through my questions and coming forward to express your views.
    However, I was looking for more specific "factual" answers. My question is "What does a client miss if they opt to install only ABAP based BI 7.0, as against JAVA Based BI 7.0"
    thanks again.
    Naga

  • How to format date faster than SimpleDateFormat

    Hi All,
    Can someone tell me way to format the date faster than SimpleDateFormat.
    Thanks in advance.
    Cheers!!
    Puneet

    At times when we declare formatter again and again,
    the SimpleDateFormat's performance is less as
    compared to the apache's FastDateFormat..1) Decaring it wouldn't be what makes it slow. Instantiating it would.
    2) As already stated--simply don't instantiate that many of them. Create a few and reuse them.
    3) So what if the other one is faster? Have you run into actual problems with SimpleDateFormat being a bottleneck? A Ferrari is faster than my car, but it makes no significant difference for how I use a car. I would not realize any meaningful speed improvement if I had a Ferrari.
    4) If the other one is faster and it's that buggerall important, then use the faster one.
    . So I was
    trying to find out if Sun has something to solve my
    problem.You can peruse the API docs as well as anybody else.
    I am using the formatting in batch process
    so data to process is huge.Have you found a bottleneck? Have you put a profiler on it? Have you determined that it's the parsing that's causing the problems and that creating is negligible?

Maybe you are looking for

  • Can't view PDF files in Wb Browser

    Hello from a relative newbie to Adobe. Recently I began getting the message " Adobe Acrobat Reader that is running cannot be used to view PDF files in a web browser. Adobe Acrobat/Reader version 8 or 9 is required. Please exit and try again " when vi

  • Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

    I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 2

  • A simple problem that confounds me....

    Hi everyone, Im hoping this is a painfully simple mistake Im making, and not a profound one. My goal is to pring out a diamond display, and this is the code Ive written so far. If anyone can point out what might be wrong with it I would appreciate it

  • Fiscal year version 0 error

    Hi All, I am working in sandbox. While creating standard sales order, after entering material no. and quantity, I am getting error as version 0 is not maintained in fiscal year 2009. Please guide. Regards,

  • Lion compatibility with adobe cs5 premium suite

    In a nut shell compatibility with adobe cs5 premium suite with lion osx. I have been waiting till all problems are resolved any output on this subject. Have iMac i7 core processor 8 gb of ram memory.