If you give 100 threads access to a shared MessageDigest
and get them to calculate 1,000,000 hashes each then on my machine the first thread finishes in 70,160ms and the last finishes in 98,748ms.
If the threads create a new instance of MessageDigest
each time, then the first thread finishes in 43,392ms and the last 58,691ms.
Edit:
In fact with this example, with only two threads the example creating new instances runs quicker.
import java.security.MessageDigest;
import java.security.NoSuchAlgorithmException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class Share {
final byte[] bytes = new byte[100];
final MessageDigest sharedDigest;
final ExecutorService pool;
int threads = 100;
Share() throws NoSuchAlgorithmException {
sharedDigest = MessageDigest.getInstance("MD5");
pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(threads);
}
void go() {
for (int i=0; i<threads; i++) {
pool.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i=0; i<1000000; i++) {
/*
synchronized (sharedDigest) {
sharedDigest.reset();
sharedDigest.update(bytes);
sharedDigest.digest();
}*/
try {
MessageDigest digest = MessageDigest.getInstance("MD5");
digest.reset();
digest.update(bytes);
digest.digest();
} catch (Exception ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println(end-start);
pool.shutdown();
}
});
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Share share = new Share();
share.go();
}
}
This test seems to be in favour of caching
long t0 = System.currentTimeMillis();
byte[] bytes = new byte[100];
MessageDigest md = MessageDigest.getInstance("MD5");
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
//MessageDigest md = MessageDigest.getInstance("MD5");
md.reset();
md.update(bytes);
md.digest();
}
System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis() - t0);
When md is outside the loop it prints 579, when inside - 953.