From: | Felipe Schnack <felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-jdbc <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: synchronized code |
Date: | 2003-01-09 10:59:34 |
Message-ID: | 1042109974.20999.10.camel@desenv1.ritterdosreis.br |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Calling System.gc() don't necessarly executes garbage collecting, it
just gives a "hint" to the garbage collector... anyway, I don't see why
this would add so much overhead (creating lots of objects)
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 19:59, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 01:56:19PM -0800, Barry Lind wrote:
> > Oliver,
> >
> > What you need to be testing is syncronization vs. object allocation
> > *and* garbage collection. How are you testing the overhead that the
> > garbage collection adds since garbage collection in java by its nature
> > is something that is async.
> >
> > Perhaps having a System.gc() call at the end of each test would be
> > sufficient?
>
> I'm timing total throughput across all threads vs. elapsed real time so GC
> should be included. -verbose:gc shows that minor GCs are, in fact, happening
> frequently (2-3 per second)
>
> -O
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Felipe Schnack
Analista de Sistemas
felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br
Cel.: (51)91287530
Linux Counter #281893
Centro Universitário Ritter dos Reis
http://www.ritterdosreis.br
ritter(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br
Fone/Fax.: (51)32303341
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Felipe Schnack | 2003-01-09 11:02:11 | [Fwd: Re: [GENERAL] 7.3 Prepared statements] |
Previous Message | Felipe Schnack | 2003-01-09 10:58:25 | Re: synchronized code |