stream() / parallelStream() methods

[Kevin Bourrillion]

Doug, I am extraordinarily unmoved by this concern. :-)  Does a break-even
point moving a few elements in either direction really matter?


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

Depends how seriously you are counting.  Doug counts individual object
> creations and virtual invocations on the way to a parallel operation,
> because until you start forking, you're on the wrong side of Amdahl's law
> -- this is all "serial fraction" that happens before you can fork any work,
> which pushes your breakeven threshold further out.  So getting the setup
> path for parallel ops fast is valuable.
>
>
> On 2/8/2013 6:25 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com
>> <mailto:brian.goetz at oracle.com**>> wrote:
>>
>>         (Tangentially, I would really love to drop parallelStream() and
>> let
>>         people call stream().parallel(). But I haven't managed to scour
>> the
>>         archives to find if that argument's already suitably played out.)
>>
>>
>>     Direct version is more performant, in that it requires less wrapping
>>     (to turn a stream into a parallel stream, you have to first create
>>     the sequential stream, then transfer ownership of its state into a
>>     new Stream.)
>>
>>
>> But really a lot of /work/ has already happened by then?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. |kevinb at google.com
>> <mailto:kevinb at google.com>
>>
>


-- 
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-experts/attachments/20130208/e0fcb9d4/attachment-0001.html