Re: StringBuffer vs. StringBuilder
| От | Dave Cramer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: StringBuffer vs. StringBuilder |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CADK3HHL+ECTxnV0A5VfV-QPP8w3=YY_47Kf5NdB=2CEOUL146w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | StringBuffer vs. StringBuilder (Frederik Wiers <frederik.wiers@gmail.com>) |
| Список | 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?
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Frederik Wiers <frederik.wiers@gmail.com> wrote:
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.The little performance test shown at http://stackoverflow.com/a/2771852/3080094I 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.Hello,suggestion for a small performance improvement: replace StringBuffer with StringBuilder when the StringBuffer is used as a local variable in a method.
Frederik
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: