> From: David Kerber [mailto:dcker...@verizon.net] > Subject: Re: Performance with many small requests > > Incrementing a counter can't be much of a synchronization bottleneck, > and if I switch to an AtomicInteger, it should be even less of one.
Actually, it won't. There's a slight performance difference between the two mechanisms, but it's usually in favor of the synchronized increment, not the AtomicInteger, at least on my dual-core AMD 64 system running JDK 6u12 in 64-bit server mode on Vista. The difference is only a few percent, so you should just code it whichever way you find more maintainable. (Test program available on request; it would be interesting to see if the same relationship exists on a modern Intel chip.) - Chuck THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
