From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Frederik Wiers <frederik(dot)wiers(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: StringBuffer vs. StringBuilder |
Date: | 2014-01-22 21:11:26 |
Message-ID: | CADK3HHL+ECTxnV0A5VfV-QPP8w3=YY_47Kf5NdB=2CEOUL146w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Frederik,
Statement caching has been a fairly hot topic of late. What would you
expect statement caching to give you ?
Currently we don't really parse the statements. So parsing isn't a huge
overhead, but there is some.
We don't use a named statement on the server so that is relatively quick.
I'd be interested in seeing a proof of concept with some performance
numbers if you have some cycles?
Dave Cramer
dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Frederik Wiers <frederik(dot)wiers(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
> Hello,
>
> suggestion for a small performance improvement: replace StringBuffer with
> StringBuilder when the StringBuffer is used as a local variable in a method.
>
> I just browsed the git-repo (
> https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/tree/master/org/postgresql) looking for
> prepared statement caching (which I could not find, but that is for another
> day) and saw a lot of places where StringBuffer can be replaced by
> StringBuilder.
>
> The little performance test shown at
> http://stackoverflow.com/a/2771852/3080094
> indicates that if StringBuffer is used a lot, replacing it with
> StringBuilder can make a difference. And I can not think of a reason to use
> a StringBuffer if it is just used locally in a method to build a String.
>
> Frederik
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian Weimer | 2014-01-23 10:46:42 | Re: revisiting unix domain sockets |
Previous Message | Jeremy Whiting | 2014-01-22 21:08:10 | Re: Performance improvement proposal. Removal of toLowerCase calls. PR |