Why would Rust be cheating here? Java cannot make these types of optimizations yet (though they are likely coming with Project Valhalla) but that doesn't mean Rust should be similarly handicapped in benchmarks. This is because a friend of mine, after seeing my results, told me I was cheating, because all Rust versions so far used registers/stack to return the value, and Java was at a disadvantage due to returning on the heap (by default). > A special “I would never write Rust like that” variant that returns the value in a Box on the heap. Void movePointer(ByteBuffer buffer, int idx) It'll get a bit better with the Foreign Memory API which is in the JEP pipe.īut a very bare bones example might look something like A lot of it's sort of like programming old-school C with oven mitts. Yeah this sort of work isn't Java's strong suite. But few people writes code like what is being benchmarked (in hot loops) in practice. It would be great if boxing could be eliminated as well.
So the overhead of using OptionalLong and Optional seems to have gone away with Valhalla. And SumOptional is now as fast as SumNulls. OptionalLong is now as fast as simple sum. OptionBenchmark.sumOptionalLongValhalla avgt 5 326,949 us/op OptionBenchmark.sumOptionalValhalla avgt 5 572,833 us/op OptionBenchmark.sumNullsValhalla avgt 5 584,967 us/op OptionBenchmark.sumSimpleValhalla avgt 5 327,927 us/op OptionBenchmark.sumOptionalLong avgt 5 1201,987 us/op OptionBenchmark.sumOptional avgt 5 2223,887 us/op OptionBenchmark.sumNulls avgt 5 570,800 us/op OptionBenchmark.sumSimple avgt 5 328,110 us/op I reran the benchmarks with the latest Valhalla branch and added a test that used OptionalLong instead of Optional. Optional is being being converted to a value class as part of Project Valhalla.
0 kommentar(er)
