Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • Thank you for your answer. I have looked at the source code myself and I did not find anything that could be an issue. Still, something tells me this is not the only place where things can go wrong. Hopefully, different JVMs (different vendors) in the same cluster will not be a case for us. Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 23:12
  • 1
    I would think that if a vendor is breaking the spec you could run a bunch of known Strings and compare to the official results. Be sure to run some long ones. Back in Java's early days the hashCode method only considered the first 16 (maybe 32?) characters. I could see a vendor trying to win a benchmark by doing similar. Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 23:25
  • Good advice, thanks for sharing it. I believe for the current matter we will stick with Oracle's JVM, although that knowledge might prove quite useful one day. Having thoughts on it, such "performance gain" may cost a lot of undesired and unpredictable behavior. Wonder if a JVM vendor out there could fall into that category Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 23:29