Long primitive or AtomicLong for a counter?
Posted
by Rich
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by Rich
Published on 2010-03-15T14:57:52Z
Indexed on
2010/03/15
14:59 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 195
Hi
I have a need for a counter of type long
with the following requirements/facts:
- Incrementing the counter should take as little time as possible.
- The counter will only be written to by one thread.
- Reading from the counter will be done in another thread.
- The counter will be incremented regularly (as much as a few thousand times per second), but will only be read once every five seconds.
- Precise accuracy isn't essential, only a rough idea of the size of the counter is good enough.
- The counter is never cleared, decremented.
Based upon these requirements, how would you choose to implement your counter? As a simple long
, as a volatile long
or using an AtomicLong
? Why?
At the moment I have a volatile long
but was wondering whether another approach would be better. I am also incrementing my long by doing ++counter
as opposed to counter++
. Is this really any more efficient (as I have been led to believe elsewhere) because there is no assignment being done?
Thanks in advance
Rich
© Stack Overflow or respective owner