如果有的话,下面两个循环之间的性能差异是什么?
for (Object o: objectArrayList) {
o.DoSomething();
}
and
for (int i=0; i<objectArrayList.size(); i++) {
objectArrayList.get(i).DoSomething();
}
如果有的话,下面两个循环之间的性能差异是什么?
for (Object o: objectArrayList) {
o.DoSomething();
}
and
for (int i=0; i<objectArrayList.size(); i++) {
objectArrayList.get(i).DoSomething();
}
当前回答
不幸的是,两者之间似乎存在差异。
如果查看这两种循环生成的字节代码,就会发现它们是不同的。
下面是来自Log4j源代码的一个示例。
在/log4j-api/src/main/java/org/apache/ loggging/ log4j/ markermanager .java中,我们有一个名为Log4jMarker的静态内部类,它定义了:
/*
* Called from add while synchronized.
*/
private static boolean contains(final Marker parent, final Marker... localParents) {
//noinspection ForLoopReplaceableByForEach
for (final Marker marker : localParents) {
if (marker == parent) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
使用标准循环:
private static boolean contains(org.apache.logging.log4j.Marker, org.apache.logging.log4j.Marker...);
Code:
0: iconst_0
1: istore_2
2: aload_1
3: arraylength
4: istore_3
5: iload_2
6: iload_3
7: if_icmpge 29
10: aload_1
11: iload_2
12: aaload
13: astore 4
15: aload 4
17: aload_0
18: if_acmpne 23
21: iconst_1
22: ireturn
23: iinc 2, 1
26: goto 5
29: iconst_0
30: ireturn
for - each:
private static boolean contains(org.apache.logging.log4j.Marker, org.apache.logging.log4j.Marker...);
Code:
0: aload_1
1: astore_2
2: aload_2
3: arraylength
4: istore_3
5: iconst_0
6: istore 4
8: iload 4
10: iload_3
11: if_icmpge 34
14: aload_2
15: iload 4
17: aaload
18: astore 5
20: aload 5
22: aload_0
23: if_acmpne 28
26: iconst_1
27: ireturn
28: iinc 4, 1
31: goto 8
34: iconst_0
35: ireturn
那个神谕是怎么回事?
我在Windows 7上用Java 7和Java 8尝试过。
其他回答
唯一确定的方法是对其进行基准测试,甚至这也不像听起来那么简单。JIT编译器可以对代码做一些意想不到的事情。
摘自Joshua Bloch的《Effective Java》第46条:
The for-each loop, introduced in release 1.5, gets rid of the clutter and the opportunity for error by hiding the iterator or index variable completely. The resulting idiom applies equally to collections and arrays: // The preferred idiom for iterating over collections and arrays for (Element e : elements) { doSomething(e); } When you see the colon (:), read it as “in.” Thus, the loop above reads as “for each element e in elements.” Note that there is no performance penalty for using the for-each loop, even for arrays. In fact, it may offer a slight performance advantage over an ordinary for loop in some circumstances, as it computes the limit of the array index only once. While you can do this by hand (Item 45), programmers don’t always do so.
不幸的是,两者之间似乎存在差异。
如果查看这两种循环生成的字节代码,就会发现它们是不同的。
下面是来自Log4j源代码的一个示例。
在/log4j-api/src/main/java/org/apache/ loggging/ log4j/ markermanager .java中,我们有一个名为Log4jMarker的静态内部类,它定义了:
/*
* Called from add while synchronized.
*/
private static boolean contains(final Marker parent, final Marker... localParents) {
//noinspection ForLoopReplaceableByForEach
for (final Marker marker : localParents) {
if (marker == parent) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
使用标准循环:
private static boolean contains(org.apache.logging.log4j.Marker, org.apache.logging.log4j.Marker...);
Code:
0: iconst_0
1: istore_2
2: aload_1
3: arraylength
4: istore_3
5: iload_2
6: iload_3
7: if_icmpge 29
10: aload_1
11: iload_2
12: aaload
13: astore 4
15: aload 4
17: aload_0
18: if_acmpne 23
21: iconst_1
22: ireturn
23: iinc 2, 1
26: goto 5
29: iconst_0
30: ireturn
for - each:
private static boolean contains(org.apache.logging.log4j.Marker, org.apache.logging.log4j.Marker...);
Code:
0: aload_1
1: astore_2
2: aload_2
3: arraylength
4: istore_3
5: iconst_0
6: istore 4
8: iload 4
10: iload_3
11: if_icmpge 34
14: aload_2
15: iload 4
17: aaload
18: astore 5
20: aload 5
22: aload_0
23: if_acmpne 28
26: iconst_1
27: ireturn
28: iinc 4, 1
31: goto 8
34: iconst_0
35: ireturn
那个神谕是怎么回事?
我在Windows 7上用Java 7和Java 8尝试过。
通过变量名称objectArrayList,我假设它是java.util.ArrayList的一个实例。在这种情况下,性能差异是不明显的。
另一方面,如果它是java.util的实例。LinkedList,第二种方法会慢得多,因为list# get(int)是一个O(n)操作。
因此,第一种方法总是首选的,除非循环中的逻辑需要索引。
以下代码:
import java.lang.reflect.Array;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
interface Function<T> {
long perform(T parameter, long x);
}
class MyArray<T> {
T[] array;
long x;
public MyArray(int size, Class<T> type, long x) {
array = (T[]) Array.newInstance(type, size);
this.x = x;
}
public void forEach(Function<T> function) {
for (T element : array) {
x = function.perform(element, x);
}
}
}
class Compute {
int factor;
final long constant;
public Compute(int factor, long constant) {
this.factor = factor;
this.constant = constant;
}
public long compute(long parameter, long x) {
return x * factor + parameter + constant;
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Long> numbers = new ArrayList<Long>(50000000);
for (int i = 0; i < 50000000; i++) {
numbers.add(i * i + 5L);
}
long x = 234553523525L;
long time = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i = 0; i < numbers.size(); i++) {
x += x * 7 + numbers.get(i) + 3;
}
System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis() - time);
System.out.println(x);
x = 0;
time = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (long i : numbers) {
x += x * 7 + i + 3;
}
System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis() - time);
System.out.println(x);
x = 0;
numbers = null;
MyArray<Long> myArray = new MyArray<Long>(50000000, Long.class, 234553523525L);
for (int i = 0; i < 50000000; i++) {
myArray.array[i] = i * i + 3L;
}
time = System.currentTimeMillis();
myArray.forEach(new Function<Long>() {
public long perform(Long parameter, long x) {
return x * 8 + parameter + 5L;
}
});
System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis() - time);
System.out.println(myArray.x);
myArray = null;
myArray = new MyArray<Long>(50000000, Long.class, 234553523525L);
for (int i = 0; i < 50000000; i++) {
myArray.array[i] = i * i + 3L;
}
time = System.currentTimeMillis();
myArray.forEach(new Function<Long>() {
public long perform(Long parameter, long x) {
return new Compute(8, 5).compute(parameter, x);
}
});
System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis() - time);
System.out.println(myArray.x);
}
}
在我的系统上给出以下输出:
224
-699150247503735895
221
-699150247503735895
220
-699150247503735895
219
-699150247503735895
我运行的是带有OracleJDK 1.7更新6的Ubuntu 12.10 alpha。
一般来说,HotSpot优化了大量的间接操作和简单的冗余操作,所以一般情况下,您不必担心它们,除非它们有很多顺序或嵌套严重。
另一方面,LinkedList上的索引get比LinkedList上的next On迭代器要慢得多,所以当你使用迭代器(显式或隐式地在for-each循环中)时,你可以避免性能损失,同时保持可读性。