Which is better in performance Double + "" or Double.toString() ?

Can anyone let me know which of these will be performance effective for converting a Double to String:
1. Double + ""
2. Double.toString() ?

ejp wrote:
Double+"" calls String.valueOf(double) and then appends "" so it can't possibly be faster.Actually the append/+ uses a StringBuilder which costs almost a micro-second more. (Actually its about 0.3 us on my machine)
Both methods call Double.toString(double) which is what I would use except ""+d is faster to type. ;)
Edited by: Peter__Lawrey on 25-Jul-2009 07:57

Similar Messages

Subquery vs UNION, which is better for performance?

I want to know which in better for performance using a subquery method or a UNION?
Any information would be helpful and appreciated!

Hi,
It depends on the SQL statments and each case is different from an other one. Take a look at the oracle doc: "Designing and Tuning for Performance".
Regards,
CB

Which is better for performance Azure SQL Database or SQL Server in Azure VM?

Hi,
We are building an ASP.NET app that will be running on Microsoft Cloud which I think is the new name for Windows Azure. We're expecting this app to have many simultaneous users and want to make sure that we provide excellent performance to end users.
Here are our main concerns/desires:
Performance is paramount. Fast response times are very very important
We want to have as little to do with platform maintenance as possible e.g. managing OS or SQL Server updates, etc.
We are trying to use "out-of-the-box" standard features.
With that said, which option would give us the best possible database performance: a SQL Server instance running in a VM on Azure or SQL Server Database as a fully managed service?
Thanks, Sam

hello,
SQL Database using shared resources on the Microsft data centre. Microsoft balance the resource usage of SQL Database so that no one application continuously dominates any resource.You can try the
Premium Preview
for Windows Azure SQL Database which offers better performance by guaranteeing a fixed amount of dedicated resources for a database.
If you using SQL Server instance running in a VM, you control the operating system and database configuration. And the
performance of the database depends on many factors such as the size of a virtual machine, and the configuration of the data disks.
Reference:
Choosing between SQL Server in Windows Azure VM & Windows Azure SQL Database
Regards,
Fanny Liu
If you have any feedback on our support, please click here.
Fanny Liu
TechNet Community Support

Which is better from performance point of view : Enum or String?

Hello All
While working to re-factor code so as to improve performance,I saw that repeatedly some Strings are used to be put as keys in a HashMap.
Will there be an improvement in performance if I assign use enums in place of using double quoted strings everytime.
Also,Is it a better idea to use string constants rather than enums.
Can anyone help me over this?
Thanks in advance
Mansi

Found an article in Java performance tuning book.But they nowhere mentioned the perfect reason for doing this.Here's the artice :
Enumerating constants
Another canonicalization technique often used is replacing constant objects with integers. For example, rather than use the strings "female" and "male", you should use a constant defined in an interface:
public interface GENDER
public static final int FEMALE=1;
public static final int MALE=2;
Used consistently, this enumeration can provide both speed and memory advantages. The enumeration requires less memory than the equivalent strings and makes network transfers faster. Comparisons are faster too, as the identity comparison can be used instead of the equality comparison. For example, you can use:
this.gender == FEMALE;
instead of:
this.gender.equals("female");

File Or Proxy Which is better in Performance?

Hi Friends,
In one scenario we are sending data from R/3 to legacy System.. The amount of Data Could be around 2000 records(Each record having just 5 fields).. For retreiving data from R/3 we are thing of going for Proxy... At the same time we are thinking of useing File adapter for reading data from R/3.we will write that data to a file and then transfer .... My doubt is which is the better way to do it...And in which type of scenarios using File for Reading R/3 data is suggested....
Regards,
Shyam M.

Yes the Proxy will be direct communication with integration server.
But with file you need to have the File adapter to conver it to XML format before reaching upto Integration server. While dealing with high volume of data this will affect lot on the performance.
Actually above 80MB there might be problems with memory on your abap stack.
Upgrade the configuration of Integration Engine.
Here you need to increase the Memory size as well as paging and heap size. It will allow you to have max utilization of memory for such vloume of data.
Thanks
swarup

Which is better ? for loop or iterator ??

Hi,
I have one array list having more than 100 objects in it.
I have two way to ietrator.
1.
for(int i=0; i<list.size(); i++)
Object o = list.get(i);
2.
Iterator i = list.getIterator()
while(i.hasNext())
Object o ...
which is better in performance ??

Well okay. It's an easy optimization but I guess Sun
doesn't want to "bail out" people who don't know
their data structures.It won't always be optimal, though. If you use
iterators and don't iterate the whole way through
every time, it would degrade performance. It's hard
for them to make assumptions about how you will
access the data. So you punish people who do use it
properly if you do that.I don't know. The optimization I suggested is isolated to random accesses in the linked list only. Say you access index 5. The node pointer corresponding to 5 is stored and if the next access is index 6 the node pointer you're looking for is pointer.next. There's no need to walk the list from the beginning.

Hi All, which is better while creating an object

Hi All, which is better while creating an object,
for ex:
public class Joe {
public void disp() {
System.out.println("Joe.disp");
(1) Joe j = new Joe();
j.disp();
(2) new Joe().disp();
of course, both are equal, which is better in performance perspective

I suggest you just write code and when the assignment is done, AND you have a performance issue, only then try to improve things. The question you're asking now is likely of no relevance to the performance of you application.
You can run your application through a profiler to see what specific part of it is consuming (too) much memory.

Which is better, Double Buffering 1, or Double Buffering 2??

Hi,
I came across a book that uses a completely different approach to double buffering. I use this method:
private Graphics dbg;
private Image dbImage;
public void update() {
if (dbImage == null) {
    dbImage = createImage(this.getSize().width, this.getSize().height);
    dbg = dbImage.getGraphics();
dbg.setColor(this.getBackground());
dbg.fillRect(0, 0, this.getSize().width, this.getSize().height);
dbg.setColor(this.getForeground());
paint(dbg);
g.drawImage(dbImage, 0, 0, this);
}that was my method for double buffering, and this is the books method:
import java.awt.*;
public class DB extends Canvas {
     private Image[] backing = new Image[2];
     private int imageToDraw = 0;
     private int imageNotDraw = 1;
     public void update(Graphics g) {
          paint(g);
     public synchronized void paint(Graphics g) {
          g.drawImage(backing[imageToDraw], 0, 0, this);
     public void addNotify() {
          super.addNotify();
          backing[0] = createImage(400, 400);
          backing[1] = createImage(400, 400);
          setSize(400, 400);
          new Thread(
               new Runnable() {
                    private int direction = 1;
                    private int position = 0;
                    public void run() {
                         while (true) {
                              try {
                                   Thread.sleep(10);
                              }catch (InterruptedException ex) {
                              Graphics g = backing[imageNotDraw].getGraphics();
                              g.clearRect(0, 0, 400, 400);
                                                g.setColor(Color.black);
                              g.drawOval(position, 200 - position, 400 - (2 * position), 72 * position);
                              synchronized (DB.this) {
                                   int temp = imageNotDraw;
                                   imageNotDraw = imageToDraw;
                                   imageToDraw = temp;
                              position += direction;
                              if (position > 199) {
                                   direction = -1;
                              }else if (position < 1) {
                                   direction = 1;
                              repaint();
          ).start();
     public static void main(String args[]) {
          Frame f = new Frame("Double Buffering");
          f.add(new DB(), BorderLayout.CENTER);
          f.pack();
          f.show();
}which is better? I noticed smoother animation with the later method.
Is there no difference? Or is it just a figment of my imagination??

To be fair if you download an applet all the class files are stored in your .jpi_cache, and depending on how that game requests its graphics sometimes they are stored there to, so really if you have to download an applet game twice, blame the programmer (I've probably got that dead wrong :B ).
But, what's wrong with Jars. They offer so much more.
No offence meant by this Malohkan but if you can't organize your downloaded files the internet must really be a landmine for you :)
Personally I'd be happy if I never seen another applet again, it seems java is tied to this legacy, and to the average computer user it seems that is all java is capable of.
Admitidly there are some very funky applets out here using lots of way over my head funky pixel tricks, but they would look so much better running full screen and offline.

Which is better? Code comparsion of performance and style

Recently I run into a discussion over a small piece of code. Could help me which is better, either in performance or coding style? The code is not complete, the question is the use of local cancellationNumber variable.
public String cancelAction(/**/) {
/* some code */
        String cancellationNumber = result.getCancellationNumber();
        if (empty(cancellationNumber)) {
            throw new Exception("Did not receive a cancellation number!");
        return cancellationNumber;
    }or
public String cancelAction(/**/) {
/* some code */
        if (empty(result.getCancellationNumber()) {
            throw new Exception("Did not receive a cancellation number!");
        return result.getCancellationNumber();
    }

Yes, I know profiling can be misleading, also compiler optimization adds to the picture. However seeing the numbers differentially, I think there is still some information, which is faster, even if taking it completely out scope. I didn't paste the code, because it's so trivial. I run the two methods in a loop with same arguments.
With increased loop count, the difference is 6-7%, cancelActionWithLocal being faster. But this can be pointless, I know.
package org.helloprofile;
import static org.helloprofile.Util.empty;
import java.util.Locale;
public class CUT {
    public String cancelActionWithoutLocal(Locale locale, String email, long itineraryId, String confirmationId) throws Exception {
        Result result = new Result();
        if (empty(result.getCancellationNumber())) {
            throw new Exception("Did not receive a cancellation number!");
        return result.getCancellationNumber();
    public String cancelActionWithLocal(Locale locale, String email, long actionId, String confirmationId) throws Exception {
        Result result = new Result();
        String cancellationNumber = result.getCancellationNumber();
        if (empty(cancellationNumber)) {
            throw new Exception("Did not receive a cancellation number!");
        return cancellationNumber;
}Thanks for the comments!

Performance wise which is better NOT IN or NOT EXISTS

Performance wise which is better NOT IN or NOT EXISTS.

also that not exists is not equivalent to not in
SQL> select * from dept where not exists (select * from emp where dept.deptno=comm);
    DEPTNO DNAME          LOC
        10 ACCOUNTING     NEW YORK
        20 RESEARCH       DALLAS
        30 SALES          CHICAGO
        40 OPERATIONS     BOSTON
SQL> select * from dept where deptno not in (select comm from emp);
no rows selectedin most case, Oracle internally rewrite a NOT IN in a NOT EXISTS, because NOT EXISTS usually performs better.
HTH
Laurent

Which one is better, regarding performance point of view.

Hi friends,
I have a report, which has 10 columns.
Now in order to pull data for all 10 columns, i need to access 8 tables.
Ex.. open ref_cursor for
select col1, col2, col3,.. col10
from table1, table2, table3.. table8
now i use 3 of those tables for getting column2.
Is it better to call another function (which returns this value) to pull this column2 or is it better to just join the tables to get this column?
Does using a function decrease the performance ?
Thank you
Jack

I would say try to construct the query using just SQL if at all possible. If you are attempting to do procedural operations on the data that cant be achieved through standard SQL (via case statements and the like), you probably don't have much of a choice other than to using a function or procedure. At any rate, there really isn't enough information to tell you which is better. My process for designing programs, jobs, reports, or queries tends to follow the same process when I am working solo:
1. Outline what I want on paper
2. Outline how to get it on paper
3. Create a rough draft in pseudo code
4. Write the actual code
5. Verify that I am getting consistent and correct results
6. Trace the job, program, or query in the database using a 10046 trace or, If it is pl/sql, profile it using DBMS_PROFILER
7. For 10046, I profile the trace file using a profiler of some sort (usually not tkprof unless I am working with a single statement)
8. Review the profile for issues, bugs, or poorly performing queries
I basically use the response time profiling methodology (I like this text for response time optimization techniques: Optimizing Oracle Performance, Millsap/Holt, Oreilly 2003) to identify the issues. If I determine the SQL is the issue, it is time to break out a harness tool (a tool that captures statement level execution statistics) to help me test alternatives. After I have tuned the query to my satisfaction, I repeat steps 5-8.
Please note, this is a very broad overview of my personal process and may not meet your needs. There are plenty of other considerations when designing or troubleshooting when performance improvement is the goal.

In the below queries which gives better performance

Hi All,
In the below two queries which gives better performance.
Requirement is I need to find if all the 3 score columns are null then I need to assign -ve value -9999 else some +ve value 2
1)
select case when count(CUST_score1)+count(CUST_score2)+count(CUST_score3)=0 then -111111'
else 11 end
from
customer
where subscriber_id=1050
and cust_system_code='1882484'
2)
select case whenCUST_score1 is null and CUST_score2 is null and CUST_score3 is null then '-9999'
else '11' end
from
customer
where subscriber_id=1050
and cust_system_code='1882484'
Please help, because we have more data in table customer so I need to confirm which is better.
Regards,
Chanda

user546757 wrote:
Hi All,
In the below two queries which gives better performance.
Requirement is I need to find if all the 3 score columns are null then I need to assign -ve value -9999 else some +ve value 2
1)
select case when count(CUST_score1)+count(CUST_score2)+count(CUST_score3)=0 then -111111'
else 11 end
from
customer
where subscriber_id=1050
and cust_system_code='1882484'
2)
select case whenCUST_score1 is null and CUST_score2 is null and CUST_score3 is null then '-9999'
else '11' end
from
customer
where subscriber_id=1050
and cust_system_code='1882484'
Please help, because we have more data in table customer so I need to confirm which is better.
Regards,
ChandaThe two statements aren't equivalent. If you know that your where condition is restricting to a single row then there is no point in doing a count as that will introduce an additional aggregate function that isn't required for a single row. If you are dealing with multiple rows from the where condition then the second query will return multiple rows whereas the first query returns 1 row, so they don't do the same thing anyway.

Which is better in terms of performance

Dear All,
which is better..
to use FOR ALL ENTRIES or
to build a range and use WHERE IN RANGE_TABLE .. Does this have data limitation problem.
is there a better method?
Thanks,
Raghavendra
Moderator message - Please search before asking - post locked
Edited by: Rob Burbank on Jul 7, 2009 10:53 AM

I want to know which is betterThere's not enough information for anyone here to be able to tell you.
Obviously the first one "looks" faster, but without knowing the tables, structure, data, indexes, platform etc. etc. etc. we won't have a clue.

Which is better, a G4-450 Dual or a Mac Mini 1.42?

which is better in terms of Sequencing and plug in performace, the G4-450 Dual or a Mac Mini 1.42?

G4-450GHz Dual with 896MB RAM
Mac Mini 1.42GHz with 1 gig of Ram
G4-450GHz Dual gets more instances with plugs, more tracks and performance then the 1.4GHz 17" Powerbook, 12" powerbook and Mac Mini which all have the same G4 processor.,
Today, i took the same 34 track session,
-all 34 tracks have a Logic Comp, Eq, Gate
-and also 8 Buses with Comp, EQ, Gates, Delays, Flange, Phasors, Pitch Shifters, 2 Reverbs (1 long and 1 plated) as well as some other toys.
-Master with Waves Ren Comp, Logic EQ.
-6 esx24 Instruments with high loads ( Harps, Strings, Cellos, Drums and Perc)
-8 Long (16 Bar) drum tracks ( Bass, HH, Snare, Toms, Overheads, Fills, Percussion dubs)
-4 Vocal takes and Dubs (more then 16 Bars long)
-Bass Track
-2 Acoustic stereo tracks
-4 Guitar tracks, dubbs and fills
-4 Slide Acoustic guitar tracks
-4 dubbed effect vocal tracks
AT first, he G4-450GHz Dual choked with 2 errors, then it buffered into the session well and played everything back fine of the same FW drive.
The mac mini got major problems and only performed 28 tracks with the esx24 tracks frozen, and from time to time after heating up chokes again, i had to wait a few minutes before i bounced the session due to overload errors.
Over all, Both have G4 Processors and about 1GIG ram (450GHz Dual is under 1 GIG), but its a clear fact that double processors win, even the lowest 450GHz Dual is still hotter then any flashy fast Bused mac mini, powerbook or iMac.

Which is better for newbies?

Which is better for newbies, Jgrasp or Netbeans? I need something that explains errors more thoroughly than Jgrasp.

Here's my code with 3 errors. Now bear in mind that my program has compiled completely and ran correctly up to this method. All I'm trying to do with this method is get the average of all grades in a multi-array. I researched and found some code that was similar to what I needed to do but it's not working out yet. All other methods in my program work perfectly but I can't get this one to compile.
public double getMean(int allGrades[][])
          int total = 0;
          for (int grade : allGrades)
          total += grade;
     System.out.println("Total is "+getMean(grades));
          return total/allGrades.length;
} // end class GradeBookGradebook.java:100: illegal start of type
          return total/allGrades.length;
          ^
Gradebook.java:100: <identifier> expected
          return total/allGrades.length;
          ^
Gradebook.java:100: <identifier> expected
          return total/allGrades.length;
          ^
3 errors

Which is better in performance Double + "" or Double.toString() ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for