Comment 1 Nick Edgar 2002-06-21 12:22:35 EDT

It would be good to have some numbers backing this up.

Comment 2 Jeff McAffer 2002-11-11 18:51:19 EST

Performance varies depending on the disk system (e.g., networked drives are 
horrible) and whether or not the file is in the disk cache.  On my TP with the 
file in the cache, buffered is more than 2x faster than non-buffered.  The 
result is more impressive when the file is not in the cache.

Core and JDT did a pass of making everything buffered in the 1.0 timeframe.  
Eventhough the volume of data read by the UI is probably not that great the 
change is simple and low risk.

See the test code below.  For a 3.5MB file the numbers are:

testing...
non buffered 1713
buffered 761



import java.io.*;

public class BufferTest {

public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
	long start = 0;
	System.out.println ("testing...");
	Reader in = new InputStreamReader(new FileInputStream("test"));
	start = System.currentTimeMillis();
	while (in.read() != -1) {}
	System.out.println ("non buffered " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - 
start));
	in.close();

	in = new BufferedReader (new InputStreamReader(new FileInputStream
("test")));
	start = System.currentTimeMillis();
	while (in.read() != -1) {}
	System.out.println ("buffered " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - start));
	in.close();
	}
}

Comment 3 Nick Edgar 2002-11-12 20:58:07 EST

Should fix for 2.1.
There may be others now too.

Comment 4 Andrew Irvine 2002-11-19 16:44:04 EST

BufferedReader wraps InputStreamReader in 20021120 build

Comment 5 Nick Edgar 2002-11-22 11:31:09 EST

Note that BufferedReaders need not be used when using a StringReader, since 
the reading is all done in memory anyway.
Noticed this in the changes to EditorRegistry.  There may be other places.

Comment 6 Andrew Irvine 2002-11-22 13:41:21 EST

Fixed in 20021123 build

Comment 7 Knut Radloff 2002-12-17 18:19:27 EST

Verified fixed in build 20021216. However, there are new places that don't use 
BufferedReader. Opened bug 28585.