anchor.diff:  |Average 11+^.^|*-2.3%*
   |===
   
  -Although G1 GC shows clear improvement from the Java 8, compared to Parallel GC it’s less beneficial GC strategy
  -for OptaPlanner on majority of data sets. The only exception is Machine Reassignment, which shows that with
  -G1 OptaPlanner is able to compute score calculation 83% faster.
  -This is true for Java 8 too, if you take a close look at <<table1>>.
  +Although G1 GC shows a clear improvement from Java 8, compared to Parallel GC it's less beneficial GC strategy
  +for OptaPlanner on the majority of the data sets. The only exception is Machine Reassignment, which shows that
  +the G1 OptaPlanner is able to compute score calculation 83% faster.
  +This applies to Java 8 too, as shown in <<table1>>.
   
   == Conclusion
   
  -Java 11 brings additional improvements, which of course varies across different https://www.optaplanner.org/[OptaPlanner] examples and data sets.
  -On average, there is 4.5% more performance for free when using Parallel GC and 16.1% more with G1 GC.
  -Despite the significant improvement  with G1 GC, Parallel GC is still a better option for most of the data sets under test.
  -
  -
  -
  -
  -
  -
  -
  -
  -
  -
  -
  +Java 11 brings additional improvements, which vary across different https://www.optaplanner.org/[OptaPlanner] examples and data sets.
  +On average, it is 4.5% faster when using Parallel GC and 16.1% faster with G1 GC.
  +Despite the significant improvement for G1 GC, Parallel GC is still faster for most data sets in this benchmark.
  
positive.code:   OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11.0.1+13)
    OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11.0.1+13, mixed mode)
  
  * The benchmark uses OptaPlanner version 7.14.0.Final.
  
  * Solving a planning problem involves *no IO* (except a few milliseconds during startup to load the input). *A single
  CPU is completely saturated.* It constantly creates many short lived objects, and the GC collects them afterwards.
  
negative.code: |Average 11+^.^|*4.5%*
  |===
  
  With the Parallel Garbage Collector, the results are less definite than G1. There is an improvement for some data sets,
  while others remain intact or show even a performance drop. However, on average, the Java 11 performs over 4% better.
  
  === Parallel GC vs. G1 GC on Java 11
  