On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 02/19/2013 03:03 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > @TN: So... what is the performance difference as a %? The size of the > input > > must matter too... > > I updated the issue with the latest performance data. > Which does not tell me the difference in perf before and after TN's patch, only after. The #s cannot be compared to J's since you are running on the same set up. In any case, if the tests all pass, why not commit TN's patch? Gary > > It is now still slower compared to the other two implementations (on > encode), but almost on par. Further improvements could be made in the > way we increase / ensure the buffer size. > > Thomas > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
