Performance of Pattern Matching for switch (Third Preview)
Brian Goetz
brian.goetz at oracle.com
Wed Aug 10 18:12:11 UTC 2022
Yes, the current translation is deliberately unoptimized, and in fact,
the most recent version has some translation issues that make it
accidentally worse as well (such as some unnecessary boxing.) These are
currently being worked on.
On 8/10/2022 6:04 AM, Jordan Zimmerman wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I've been experimenting with Pattern Matching for switch (Third
> Preview). I noticed that the performance of these enhanced switches is
> far worse than manual matching. Is this due to this only being a
> preview and optimizations have yet to be done? Anyway, I thought I'd
> mention what I found as an FYI.
>
> Here's the jmh benchmark I used:
> https://gist.github.com/Randgalt/a68ceee62cd8127431cbe6e7afbfdf44
>
> Here are the results:
>
> Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units
> TestEnhancedSwitch.testEnhancedSwitch thrpt 5 30789.482 ±
> 17667.365 ops/s
> TestEnhancedSwitch.testManualSwitch thrpt 5 44651.612 ±
> 5135.641 ops/s
>
> Cheers.
>
> -Jordan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-dev/attachments/20220810/d1df32f2/attachment.htm>
More information about the amber-dev
mailing list