http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163 --- Comment #30 from Ceki Gulcu <lists@slf4j.org> 2010-03-30 17:53:20 --- Hi Joern, I'd speculate that the SimpleLogging variant would be at least a 1'000'000 times slower than invoking any existing slf4j logger. I'd be very surprised by anything less than 100'000 but I like surprises. To get somewhat "reliable" micro-benching results, I'd use System.nanoTime before entering and after existing the loop, and run the loop 3 times (to let the HotSpot compiler warm up) using the 3rd result. The loop length should be inversely proportional to the speed of the code inside the loop (very quick code => long loop length, slow code => short loop length). HTH -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.