
Does the JVM eliminate allocations of temporary objects?
A Stack Overflow user was wondering if the JVM can eliminate the allocation of a temporary object by replacing it with an implicit static instance. Is the JVM “smart enough” to do so?
A Stack Overflow user was wondering if the JVM can eliminate the allocation of a temporary object by replacing it with an implicit static instance. Is the JVM “smart enough” to do so?
Resource efficiency is a major concern when it comes to optimizing the performance and scalability of an application. In the Java world, one aspect that usually dominates resource concerns is memory usage - more specifically, the size of the Java heap.
A Stack Overflow user noticed frequent recompilations, even after a substantial JVM uptime and couldn’t find an explanation based on the common knowledge on JIT compilers.
Logically, a single write can be seen as both, random and sequential, because it always affects a specific number of consecutive bytes. In case of synchronous and direct I/O, where writes are not delayed based on caching, the actual execution order and timing of writes are critical.
The write performance of a disk is influenced by the physical properties of the storage device (e.g. the physical rotational speed in revolutions per minute in case of a mechanical disk), the disk I/O unit to I/O request size ratio and the OS/application.