Java performance - Revision history

GreenC bot: Rescued 1 archive link; reformat 1 link. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:USURPURL and JUDI batch #27ah

2025-05-04T19:14:08Z

Rescued 1 archive link; reformat 1 link. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:USURPURL and JUDI batch #27ah

← Previous revision		Revision as of 19:14, 4 May 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:
	}}</ref><ref name=cnet1998/><ref>{{cite web		}}</ref><ref name=cnet1998/><ref>{{cite web
	\| url=http://grnlight.net/index.php/programming-articles/116-java-gets-four-times-faster-with-new-symantec-just-in-time-compiler		\| url=http://grnlight.net/index.php/programming-articles/116-java-gets-four-times-faster-with-new-symantec-just-in-time-compiler
			\| archive-url=https://archive.today/20140527181040/http://grnlight.net/index.php/programming-articles/116-java-gets-four-times-faster-with-new-symantec-just-in-time-compiler
			\| url-status=usurped
			\| archive-date=May 27, 2014
	\| title=Java gets four times faster with new Symantec just-in-time compiler}}</ref> the addition of language features supporting better code analysis, and optimizations in the JVM (such as [[HotSpot (virtual machine)\|HotSpot]] becoming the default for [[Sun Microsystems\|Sun]]'s JVM in 2000). Sophisticated [[garbage collection (computer science)\|garbage collection]] strategies were also an area of improvement. Hardware execution of Java bytecode, such as that offered by ARM's [[Jazelle]], was explored but not deployed.		\| title=Java gets four times faster with new Symantec just-in-time compiler}}</ref> the addition of language features supporting better code analysis, and optimizations in the JVM (such as [[HotSpot (virtual machine)\|HotSpot]] becoming the default for [[Sun Microsystems\|Sun]]'s JVM in 2000). Sophisticated [[garbage collection (computer science)\|garbage collection]] strategies were also an area of improvement. Hardware execution of Java bytecode, such as that offered by ARM's [[Jazelle]], was explored but not deployed.

InternetArchiveBot: Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5

2024-10-03T04:05:49Z

Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5

← Previous revision		Revision as of 04:05, 3 October 2024
Line 336:		Line 336:

	===Multi-core performance===		===Multi-core performance===
	The scalability and performance of Java applications on multi-core systems is limited by the object allocation rate. This effect is sometimes called an "allocation wall".<ref>Yi Zhao, Jin Shi, Kai Zheng, Haichuan Wang, Haibo Lin and Ling Shao, [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1640116 Allocation wall: a limiting factor of Java applications on emerging multi-core platforms], Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications, 2009.</ref> However, in practice, modern garbage collector algorithms use multiple cores to perform garbage collection, which to some degree alleviates this problem. Some garbage collectors are reported to sustain allocation rates of over a gigabyte per second,<ref>[http://www.azulsystems.com/sites/default/files/images/c4_paper_acm_0.pdf C4: The Continuously Concurrent Compacting Collector]</ref> and there exist Java-based systems that have no problems scaling to several hundreds of CPU cores and heaps sized several hundreds of GB.<ref>[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/15/azul_releases_7200_systems/ Azul bullies Java with 768 core machine]</ref>		The scalability and performance of Java applications on multi-core systems is limited by the object allocation rate. This effect is sometimes called an "allocation wall".<ref>Yi Zhao, Jin Shi, Kai Zheng, Haichuan Wang, Haibo Lin and Ling Shao, [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1640116 Allocation wall: a limiting factor of Java applications on emerging multi-core platforms], Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications, 2009.</ref> However, in practice, modern garbage collector algorithms use multiple cores to perform garbage collection, which to some degree alleviates this problem. Some garbage collectors are reported to sustain allocation rates of over a gigabyte per second,<ref>{{Cite web \|url=http://www.azulsystems.com/sites/default/files/images/c4_paper_acm_0.pdf \|title=C4: The Continuously Concurrent Compacting Collector \|access-date=October 29, 2013 \|archive-date=August 9, 2014 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140809222603/http://www.azulsystems.com/sites/default/files/images/c4_paper_acm_0.pdf \|url-status=dead }}</ref> and there exist Java-based systems that have no problems scaling to several hundreds of CPU cores and heaps sized several hundreds of GB.<ref>[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/15/azul_releases_7200_systems/ Azul bullies Java with 768 core machine]</ref>

	Automatic memory management in Java allows for efficient use of lockless and immutable data structures that are extremely hard or sometimes impossible to implement without some kind of a garbage collection.{{citation needed\|date=September 2018}} Java offers a number of such high-level structures in its standard library in the java.util.concurrent package, while many languages historically used for high performance systems like C or C++ are still lacking them.{{citation needed\|date=September 2017}}		Automatic memory management in Java allows for efficient use of lockless and immutable data structures that are extremely hard or sometimes impossible to implement without some kind of a garbage collection.{{citation needed\|date=September 2018}} Java offers a number of such high-level structures in its standard library in the java.util.concurrent package, while many languages historically used for high performance systems like C or C++ are still lacking them.{{citation needed\|date=September 2017}}

Osalbahr: Wikilink directly to Third-generation programming language

2024-05-04T02:52:38Z

Wikilink directly to Third-generation programming language

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:52, 4 May 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{Use mdy dates\|date=October 2018}}		{{Use mdy dates\|date=October 2018}}

	In [[software development]], the programming language [[Java (programming language)\|Java]] was historically considered slower than the fastest [[~~Programming~~ ~~language~~ ~~generations~~\|third-generation]] [[Type system\|typed]] languages such as [[C (programming language)\|C]] and [[C++]].<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://www.scribblethink.org/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html\|title=Java versus C++ benchmarks}}</ref> In contrast to those languages, Java compiles by default to a [[Java Virtual Machine]] (JVM) with operations distinct from those of the actual computer hardware. Early JVM implementations were [[Interpreter (computing)\|interpreters]]; they simulated the virtual operations one-by-one rather than translating them into [[machine code]] for direct hardware execution.		In [[software development]], the programming language [[Java (programming language)\|Java]] was historically considered slower than the fastest [[Third-generation programming language\|third-generation]] [[Type system\|typed]] languages such as [[C (programming language)\|C]] and [[C++]].<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://www.scribblethink.org/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html\|title=Java versus C++ benchmarks}}</ref> In contrast to those languages, Java compiles by default to a [[Java Virtual Machine]] (JVM) with operations distinct from those of the actual computer hardware. Early JVM implementations were [[Interpreter (computing)\|interpreters]]; they simulated the virtual operations one-by-one rather than translating them into [[machine code]] for direct hardware execution.

	Since the late 1990s, the execution speed of Java programs improved significantly via introduction of [[just-in-time compilation]] (JIT) (in 1997 for [[Java version history\|Java 1.1]]),<ref name="Symantec">{{Cite web		Since the late 1990s, the execution speed of Java programs improved significantly via introduction of [[just-in-time compilation]] (JIT) (in 1997 for [[Java version history\|Java 1.1]]),<ref name="Symantec">{{Cite web

GreenC bot: Rescued 1 archive link; Move 2 urls. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#symantec.com

2024-04-29T22:41:10Z

Rescued 1 archive link; Move 2 urls. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#symantec.com

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:41, 29 April 2024
Line 5:		Line 5:
	In [[software development]], the programming language [[Java (programming language)\|Java]] was historically considered slower than the fastest [[Programming language generations\|third-generation]] [[Type system\|typed]] languages such as [[C (programming language)\|C]] and [[C++]].<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://www.scribblethink.org/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html\|title=Java versus C++ benchmarks}}</ref> In contrast to those languages, Java compiles by default to a [[Java Virtual Machine]] (JVM) with operations distinct from those of the actual computer hardware. Early JVM implementations were [[Interpreter (computing)\|interpreters]]; they simulated the virtual operations one-by-one rather than translating them into [[machine code]] for direct hardware execution.		In [[software development]], the programming language [[Java (programming language)\|Java]] was historically considered slower than the fastest [[Programming language generations\|third-generation]] [[Type system\|typed]] languages such as [[C (programming language)\|C]] and [[C++]].<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://www.scribblethink.org/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html\|title=Java versus C++ benchmarks}}</ref> In contrast to those languages, Java compiles by default to a [[Java Virtual Machine]] (JVM) with operations distinct from those of the actual computer hardware. Early JVM implementations were [[Interpreter (computing)\|interpreters]]; they simulated the virtual operations one-by-one rather than translating them into [[machine code]] for direct hardware execution.

	Since the late 1990s, the execution speed of Java programs improved significantly via introduction of [[just-in-time compilation]] (JIT) (in 1997 for [[Java version history\|Java 1.1]]),<ref name="~~symantec.com~~">{{Cite web		Since the late 1990s, the execution speed of Java programs improved significantly via introduction of [[just-in-time compilation]] (JIT) (in 1997 for [[Java version history\|Java 1.1]]),<ref name="Symantec">{{Cite web
	\| url=http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp?prid=19970407_03		\| url=http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp?prid=19970407_03
			\| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100628171748/http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp?prid=19970407_03
			\| url-status=dead
			\| archive-date=June 28, 2010
	\| title=Symantec's Just-In-Time Java Compiler To Be Integrated Into Sun JDK 1.1		\| title=Symantec's Just-In-Time Java Compiler To Be Integrated Into Sun JDK 1.1
	}}</ref><ref name=cnet1998/><ref>{{cite web		}}</ref><ref name=cnet1998/><ref>{{cite web
Line 129:		Line 132:
	Apart from the improvements listed here, each release of Java introduced many performance improvements in the JVM and Java [[application programming interface]] (API).		Apart from the improvements listed here, each release of Java introduced many performance improvements in the JVM and Java [[application programming interface]] (API).

	JDK 1.1.6: First [[just-in-time compilation]] ([[NortonLifeLock\|Symantec]]'s JIT-compiler)<ref name="~~symantec.com~~"/><ref name="symantec compiler">{{Cite web\|last1=Mckay\|first1=Niali\|url=http://linxdigital.ca/java-four-times-faster-symantec-compiler.html\|title=Java gets four times faster with new Symantec just-in-time compiler}}</ref>		JDK 1.1.6: First [[just-in-time compilation]] ([[NortonLifeLock\|Symantec]]'s JIT-compiler)<ref name="Symantec"/><ref name="symantec compiler">{{Cite web\|last1=Mckay\|first1=Niali\|url=http://linxdigital.ca/java-four-times-faster-symantec-compiler.html\|title=Java gets four times faster with new Symantec just-in-time compiler}}</ref>

	J2SE 1.2: Use of a [[Garbage collection (computer science)#Generational GC (aka Ephemeral GC)\|generational collector]].		J2SE 1.2: Use of a [[Garbage collection (computer science)#Generational GC (aka Ephemeral GC)\|generational collector]].

130.195.253.10: Fixed wikilink

2024-03-19T03:14:26Z

Fixed wikilink

← Previous revision		Revision as of 03:14, 19 March 2024
Line 10:		Line 10:
	}}</ref><ref name=cnet1998/><ref>{{cite web		}}</ref><ref name=cnet1998/><ref>{{cite web
	\| url=http://grnlight.net/index.php/programming-articles/116-java-gets-four-times-faster-with-new-symantec-just-in-time-compiler		\| url=http://grnlight.net/index.php/programming-articles/116-java-gets-four-times-faster-with-new-symantec-just-in-time-compiler
	\| title=Java gets four times faster with new Symantec just-in-time compiler}}</ref> the addition of language features supporting better code analysis, and optimizations in the JVM (such as [[HotSpot (virtual machine)\|HotSpot]] becoming the default for [[Sun Microsystems\|Sun]]'s JVM in 2000). Sophisticated [[garbage collection]] strategies were also an area of improvement. Hardware execution of Java bytecode, such as that offered by ARM's [[Jazelle]], was explored but not deployed.		\| title=Java gets four times faster with new Symantec just-in-time compiler}}</ref> the addition of language features supporting better code analysis, and optimizations in the JVM (such as [[HotSpot (virtual machine)\|HotSpot]] becoming the default for [[Sun Microsystems\|Sun]]'s JVM in 2000). Sophisticated [[garbage collection (computer science)\|garbage collection]] strategies were also an area of improvement. Hardware execution of Java bytecode, such as that offered by ARM's [[Jazelle]], was explored but not deployed.

	The [[Computer performance\|performance]] of a [[Java bytecode]] compiled Java program depends on how optimally its given tasks are managed by the host [[Java virtual machine]] (JVM), and how well the JVM exploits the features of the [[computer hardware]] and [[operating system]] (OS) in doing so. Thus, any Java [[Software performance testing\|performance test]] or comparison has to always report the version, vendor, OS and hardware architecture of the used JVM. In a similar manner, the performance of the equivalent natively compiled program will depend on the quality of its generated machine code, so the test or comparison also has to report the name, version and vendor of the used compiler, and its activated [[compiler optimization]] directives.		The [[Computer performance\|performance]] of a [[Java bytecode]] compiled Java program depends on how optimally its given tasks are managed by the host [[Java virtual machine]] (JVM), and how well the JVM exploits the features of the [[computer hardware]] and [[operating system]] (OS) in doing so. Thus, any Java [[Software performance testing\|performance test]] or comparison has to always report the version, vendor, OS and hardware architecture of the used JVM. In a similar manner, the performance of the equivalent natively compiled program will depend on the quality of its generated machine code, so the test or comparison also has to report the name, version and vendor of the used compiler, and its activated [[compiler optimization]] directives.

Bubba73: /* Program speed */

2024-02-10T05:10:02Z

Program speed

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:10, 10 February 2024
Line 304:		Line 304:
	\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]		\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]
	\| date=July 1, 2005		\| date=July 1, 2005
	\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> [[Input/output\|file input/output]]<ref>{{Cite web		\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> [[Input/output\|file input/output]], <ref>{{Cite web
	\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=15		\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=15
	\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: File I/O		\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: File I/O
	\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]		\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]
	\| date=July 1, 2005		\| date=July 1, 2005
	\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> and [[exception handling]],<ref>{{Cite web		\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> and [[exception handling]]<ref>{{Cite web
	\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=17		\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=17
	\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: Exception		\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: Exception

Bubba73: /* Program speed */

2024-02-10T05:08:13Z

Program speed

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:08, 10 February 2024
Line 309:		Line 309:
	\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]		\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]
	\| date=July 1, 2005		\| date=July 1, 2005
	\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> and [[exception handling]],		\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> and [[exception handling]],<ref>{{Cite web
	<ref>{{Cite web
	\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=17		\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=17
	\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: Exception		\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: Exception
Line 321:		Line 320:
	\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]		\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]
	\| date=July 1, 2005		\| date=July 1, 2005
	\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref>		\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> have better performance in C.
	have better performance in C.
	*The performance of [[trigonometric functions]] is much better in C.<ref>{{Cite web		*The performance of [[trigonometric functions]] is much better in C.<ref>{{Cite web
	\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=19		\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=19

Bubba73: /* Program speed */

2024-02-10T05:07:09Z

Program speed

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:07, 10 February 2024
Line 304:		Line 304:
	\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]		\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]
	\| date=July 1, 2005		\| date=July 1, 2005
	\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> [[Input/output\|~~File~~ I/O]]<ref>{{Cite web		\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> [[Input/output\|file input/output]]<ref>{{Cite web
	\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=15		\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=15
	\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: File I/O		\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: File I/O
	\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]		\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]
	\| date=July 1, 2005		\| date=July 1, 2005
	\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref>		\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> and [[exception handling]],
	and [[exception handling]],
	<ref>{{Cite web		<ref>{{Cite web
	\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=17		\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=17

Bubba73: /* Program speed */

2024-02-10T05:05:37Z

Program speed

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:05, 10 February 2024
Line 309:		Line 309:
	\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]		\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]
	\| date=July 1, 2005		\| date=July 1, 2005
	\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> and [[~~Exception~~ handling]],<ref>{{Cite web		\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref>
			and [[exception handling]],
			<ref>{{Cite web
	\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=17		\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=17
	\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: Exception		\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: Exception
Line 315:		Line 317:
	\| date=July 1, 2005		\| date=July 1, 2005
	\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> have a similar performance to comparable C++ programs		\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> have a similar performance to comparable C++ programs
	*[[Array data type\|~~Array~~]]s<ref>{{Cite web		*Operations on [[Array data type\|array]]s<ref>{{Cite web
	\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=19		\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=19
	\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: Array		\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: Array
	\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]		\| publisher=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]
	\| date=July 1, 2005		\| date=July 1, 2005
	\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref> ~~operations~~ performance ~~are better~~ in C.		\| access-date=January 18, 2011}}</ref>
			have better performance in C.
	*[[~~Trigonometric~~ functions]] ~~performance~~ is much better in C.<ref>{{Cite web		*The performance of [[trigonometric functions]] is much better in C.<ref>{{Cite web
	\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=19		\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=19
	\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: Trigonometric functions		\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: Trigonometric functions

Bubba73: /* Program speed */

2024-02-10T05:01:23Z

Program speed

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:01, 10 February 2024
Line 294:		Line 294:

	Results for [[Benchmark (computing)\|microbenchmarks]] between Java and C++ highly depend on which operations are compared. For example, when comparing with Java 5.0:		Results for [[Benchmark (computing)\|microbenchmarks]] between Java and C++ highly depend on which operations are compared. For example, when comparing with Java 5.0:
	*32 and 64 bit arithmetic operations,<ref>{{Cite web		*32- and 64-bit arithmetic operations,<ref>{{Cite web
	\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=2		\| url=http://www.ddj.com/java/184401976?pgno=2
	\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: 32-bit integer arithmetic		\| title=Microbenchmarking C++, C#, and Java: 32-bit integer arithmetic

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:52, 4 May 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{Use mdy dates\|date=October 2018}}		{{Use mdy dates\|date=October 2018}}

	In [[software development]], the programming language [[Java (programming language)\|Java]] was historically considered slower than the fastest [[~~Programming~~ ~~language~~ ~~generations~~\|third-generation]] [[Type system\|typed]] languages such as [[C (programming language)\|C]] and [[C++]].<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://www.scribblethink.org/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html\|title=Java versus C++ benchmarks}}</ref> In contrast to those languages, Java compiles by default to a [[Java Virtual Machine]] (JVM) with operations distinct from those of the actual computer hardware. Early JVM implementations were [[Interpreter (computing)\|interpreters]]; they simulated the virtual operations one-by-one rather than translating them into [[machine code]] for direct hardware execution.		In [[software development]], the programming language [[Java (programming language)\|Java]] was historically considered slower than the fastest [[Third-generation programming language\|third-generation]] [[Type system\|typed]] languages such as [[C (programming language)\|C]] and [[C++]].<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://www.scribblethink.org/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html\|title=Java versus C++ benchmarks}}</ref> In contrast to those languages, Java compiles by default to a [[Java Virtual Machine]] (JVM) with operations distinct from those of the actual computer hardware. Early JVM implementations were [[Interpreter (computing)\|interpreters]]; they simulated the virtual operations one-by-one rather than translating them into [[machine code]] for direct hardware execution.

	Since the late 1990s, the execution speed of Java programs improved significantly via introduction of [[just-in-time compilation]] (JIT) (in 1997 for [[Java version history\|Java 1.1]]),<ref name="Symantec">{{Cite web		Since the late 1990s, the execution speed of Java programs improved significantly via introduction of [[just-in-time compilation]] (JIT) (in 1997 for [[Java version history\|Java 1.1]]),<ref name="Symantec">{{Cite web