Timeline for Project Euler #2 in Java
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 2015 at 3:39 | history | edited | JS1 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Modified both original and new program to measure the end time before the call to println(), to be more precise.
|
| Dec 23, 2014 at 18:02 | comment | added | Boris the Spider | @DoubleDouble a combination of both. It's very hard to benchmark effectively as the JVM has a habit of loading classes and JITing things as it goes. Even with warmup, there is no guarantee that the JVM won't decide to load/compile a whole host of seemingly unrelated stuff randomly. A benchmarking tool like caliper will actually monitor the activity of the underlying JVM to deal with these issues. | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 17:11 | vote | accept | TheCoffeeCup | ||
| Dec 23, 2014 at 15:55 | comment | added | DoubleDouble | @rolfl Is it the timing mechanism itself or would he want move his code to a method, call the method a few times to "warm-up" then start the timer and use that result? Is this because of memory caching or is there more to it? | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 13:14 | comment | added | rolfl | It should be pointed out that the timing mechanism used for measuring this performance is essentially useless... micro-benchmarking on code that has not 'warmed up' leads to misleading diagnostics | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 12:25 | comment | added | RubberDuck | Wow. I'm a little surprised at the dramatic difference. Goes to show that what's easier for a person isn't always easier for a machine. | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 6:22 | comment | added | gengkev | Agreed; the explicit mathematical formula is more elegant, but for a computer, it's more difficult to calculate. | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 5:11 | history | answered | JS1 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |