[jira] [Closed] (LOG4J2-2644) Logging with location information is considerably slower than logging with location information in java.util.logging

["Marco Herrn (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-2644?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Marco Herrn closed LOG4J2-2644.
-------------------------------

Great improvement with current HEAD of master and release-2.x branch.

> Logging with location information is considerably slower than logging with location information in java.util.logging
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LOG4J2-2644
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-2644
>             Project: Log4j 2
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 2.11.2
>            Reporter: Marco Herrn
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 2.12.1
>
>          Time Spent: 3h
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> according to https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html logging
> with location information should be roughly the same performance for JUL
> and Log4j2.
> However I made a few comparisons between Log4j2 and JUL and in this case
> Log4j2 is much faster than JUL when omitting location information, but is
> considerably slower when logging with location information.
> Those are the results:
> JUL without location information   : 32.162s
> JUL with location information      : 21.682s
> Log4j2 without location information:  4.168s
> Log4j2 with location information   : 59.000s
> In each case I logged 1500000 simple log statements (only a fixed string)
> and compared the timestamp of the first and the last generated log
> statement. Above you see the time spent between the first and the last log
> statement.
> I did these tests several times and the results are equal each time.
> In all cases I logged to a RollingFileAppender (or JULs equivalent).
> I assume that JUL with location information is faster than JUL without
> location information is because for JUL with location information I used a
> custom Formatter that doesn't support any configuration whereas I was
> using a SimpleFormatter with a specified formatstring for JUL without log
> information.
> It should be noted that I didn't use the Log4j2 API, but instead used the
> JUL logging API and used the log4j-jul-bridge to actually use Log4j2
> instead of the JUL implementation!
> I want to pay special attention to the difference when logging with
> location information, since I am puzzled that Log4j2 is that much slower
> than JUL in that case.
> The example code used for testing and the corresponding logging configurations can be found at [my example github project|http://github.com/hupfdule/LoggingPerformanceTest].
> I don't think there is anything special. Since when logging without
> location information Log4j2 is much faster than JUL there must be a
> difference between getting the location information. My above mentioned
> custom formatter uses the methods java.util.LogRecord#getSourceClassName()
> and java.util.LogRecord#getSourceMethodName() for obtaining that
> information. I haven't looked into how Log4j2 does it, but it seems to be
> much less efficient.
> I have done the tests with Java 8, but it seems that running it under Java 11 shows the same behaviour.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)