0

I use lib JJWT 0.9.0 to generate Token. I have write log code segment generate Token, and I see function compact() run verry slow (664 -151 = 513(ms)) . how to the function compact() run faster or How to generate tokens faster? I use JDK7.

My code:

public String createJWT(String id, String issuer, String subject, List<T> authories, String loginUserData,
            long ttlMillis) {
        //The JWT signature algorithm we will be using to sign the token
        long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
        LOGGER.info("createJWT id=" + id + ";issuer=" + ";subject=" + subject);
        SignatureAlgorithm signatureAlgorithm = SignatureAlgorithm.HS512;

        long nowMillis = System.currentTimeMillis();
        Date now = new Date(nowMillis);

        //We will sign our JWT with our ApiKey secret
        byte[] apiKeySecretBytes = DatatypeConverter.parseBase64Binary(ApiSecretKey.getSecretKey());
        Key signingKey = new SecretKeySpec(apiKeySecretBytes, signatureAlgorithm.getJcaName());

        //Let's set the JWT Claims
        JwtBuilder builder = Jwts.builder().setId(id).setIssuedAt(now).setSubject(subject)
                .setIssuer(issuer);
        if (!CheckObjectUtils.isNullOrEmpty(authories)) {
            builder.claim(AUTHORITIES_KEY, authories);
        }
        if (!CheckObjectUtils.isNullOrEmpty(loginUserData)) {
            builder.claim(LOGIN_USER_DATA_KEY, loginUserData);
        }

        builder.signWith(signatureAlgorithm, signingKey);

        //if it has been specified, let's add the expiration
        if (ttlMillis >= 0) {
            long expMillis = nowMillis + ttlMillis;
            Date exp = new Date(expMillis);
            builder.setExpiration(exp);
        }
        LOGGER.info("createJWT process id=" + id + ";issuer=" + ";subject=" + subject + ";time(ms)="
                + (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime));
        //Builds the JWT and serializes it to a compact, URL-safe string        
        String token = builder.compact();
        LOGGER.info("createJWT end id=" + id + ";issuer=" + ";subject=" + subject + ";time(ms)="
                + (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime));
        return token;
    }

JsonWebTokenRestApi<Long> jwtApi = new JsonWebTokenRestApiFactory(
                JsonWebTokenRestApiFactory.JWT_JJWT).getJsonWebTokenByType();
        String jwt = jwtApi.createJWT(null, null, "vinhhc_vsc", null, null, 18000);

My console log:

createJWT id=null;issuer=;subject=vinhhc_vsc
createJWT process id=null;issuer=;subject=vinhhc_vsc;time(ms)=151
createJWT end id=null;issuer=;subject=vinhhc_vsc;time(ms)=664

Thanks!

Hoang Vinh
  • 193
  • 1
  • 2
  • 11

1 Answers1

2

This is normal JVM JIT behavior - it's completely normal to have a slow initial run followed by optimized/fast subsequent runs due to JIT optimizations. Run just the compact() call in a loop and see what happens.

Here's your test re-written as proof, using the most 'expensive' secret key algorithm, HMAC-SHA-512:

import io.jsonwebtoken.JwtBuilder;
import io.jsonwebtoken.Jwts;
import io.jsonwebtoken.SignatureAlgorithm;
import io.jsonwebtoken.lang.Collections;
import io.jsonwebtoken.lang.Strings;
import io.jsonwebtoken.security.Keys;

import java.security.Key;
import java.util.Date;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.UUID;

public class Test {

    private static final Key signingKey = Keys.secretKeyFor(SignatureAlgorithm.HS512);

    private static <T> String createJWT(String id, String issuer, String subject, List<T> authories, String loginUserData,
                                       long ttlMillis) {
        //The JWT signature algorithm we will be using to sign the token
        long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
        System.out.println("createJWT id=" + id + ";issuer=" + ";subject=" + subject);
        SignatureAlgorithm signatureAlgorithm = SignatureAlgorithm.HS512;

        long nowMillis = System.currentTimeMillis();
        Date now = new Date(nowMillis);

        //Let's set the JWT Claims
        JwtBuilder builder = Jwts.builder().setId(id).setIssuedAt(now).setSubject(subject)
                .setIssuer(issuer);
        if (!Collections.isEmpty(authories)) {
            builder.claim("authorities", authories);
        }
        if (!Strings.hasText(loginUserData)) {
            builder.claim("loginUserData", loginUserData);
        }

        builder.signWith(signingKey);

        //if it has been specified, let's add the expiration
        if (ttlMillis >= 0) {
            long expMillis = nowMillis + ttlMillis;
            Date exp = new Date(expMillis);
            builder.setExpiration(exp);
        }
        System.out.println("createJWT process id=" + id + ";issuer=" + ";subject=" + subject + ";time(ms)="
                + (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime));
        //Builds the JWT and serializes it to a compact, URL-safe string
        String token = builder.compact();
        System.out.println("createJWT end id=" + id + ";issuer=" + ";subject=" + subject + ";time(ms)="
                + (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime));
        return token;
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        for( int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
            createJWT(UUID.randomUUID().toString(), "issuer", "subject", null, "random user data", 1000);
        }
    }
}

Here's the output from the loop:

createJWT id=983edbec-49f9-4754-9836-bae85c6c26e8;issuer=;subject=subject
createJWT process id=983edbec-49f9-4754-9836-bae85c6c26e8;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=19
createJWT end id=983edbec-49f9-4754-9836-bae85c6c26e8;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=319
createJWT id=ee8fa433-d032-4258-80e8-21f5fa54904c;issuer=;subject=subject
createJWT process id=ee8fa433-d032-4258-80e8-21f5fa54904c;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT end id=ee8fa433-d032-4258-80e8-21f5fa54904c;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=1
createJWT id=b8343d70-39e5-41fd-99e0-0046a0dcdb3c;issuer=;subject=subject
createJWT process id=b8343d70-39e5-41fd-99e0-0046a0dcdb3c;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT end id=b8343d70-39e5-41fd-99e0-0046a0dcdb3c;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT id=a2a81bfc-1bfd-42f8-81e3-dd27ca0bc343;issuer=;subject=subject
createJWT process id=a2a81bfc-1bfd-42f8-81e3-dd27ca0bc343;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT end id=a2a81bfc-1bfd-42f8-81e3-dd27ca0bc343;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT id=4236c531-d370-45d6-98cb-532b863d45af;issuer=;subject=subject
createJWT process id=4236c531-d370-45d6-98cb-532b863d45af;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT end id=4236c531-d370-45d6-98cb-532b863d45af;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=1
createJWT id=c3979b5c-2840-48bd-b72d-1e5d3776916b;issuer=;subject=subject
createJWT process id=c3979b5c-2840-48bd-b72d-1e5d3776916b;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT end id=c3979b5c-2840-48bd-b72d-1e5d3776916b;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT id=155e6ac6-da45-402b-a7a8-e98b358a3525;issuer=;subject=subject
createJWT process id=155e6ac6-da45-402b-a7a8-e98b358a3525;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT end id=155e6ac6-da45-402b-a7a8-e98b358a3525;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=1
createJWT id=f1cdc87c-2054-4ff5-bb5c-4b47384a1285;issuer=;subject=subject
createJWT process id=f1cdc87c-2054-4ff5-bb5c-4b47384a1285;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT end id=f1cdc87c-2054-4ff5-bb5c-4b47384a1285;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT id=0303f53f-9b9a-4e7c-99c6-788dbb883ce2;issuer=;subject=subject
createJWT process id=0303f53f-9b9a-4e7c-99c6-788dbb883ce2;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT end id=0303f53f-9b9a-4e7c-99c6-788dbb883ce2;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=1
createJWT id=701d08c1-cfcf-4f20-9270-5b1800d9a7e0;issuer=;subject=subject
createJWT process id=701d08c1-cfcf-4f20-9270-5b1800d9a7e0;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0
createJWT end id=701d08c1-cfcf-4f20-9270-5b1800d9a7e0;issuer=;subject=subject;time(ms)=0

Notice the first (and only the first) run is expensive (and to be fair, it's only 319 millseconds), and all others are super fast due to JIT optimization.

Most subsequent compact() calls are usually just microseconds (less than even 1 millisecond)!

Les Hazlewood
  • 18,480
  • 13
  • 68
  • 76