RFR 8014076: Arrays parallel and serial sorting improvements
david.holmes at oracle.com
Thu May 9 10:12:00 UTC 2013
On 9/05/2013 7:47 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 10:45 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Good point Mike. I guess the same argument could be made for putting
>>> any value in the implementation detail. Any objection to completely
>>> removing any reference to this?
>> The compile-time constant issue is easily fixed by using an
>> initialization function.
>> I think it is important for users to know what the sequential sorting
>> threshold is.
> I don't understand why this is important. Is the general advise not,
> always use parallelSort unless there is a good reason not to?
That certainly would NOT be my general advise. My general advise is only
use parallelism to solve a performance problem. Overuse of FJ for non
critical tasks will just cause contention and an overall loss of
performance at the system level.
More information about the core-libs-dev