我正在开发一个应用程序，其中一个设计方法涉及到大量使用instanceof操作符。虽然我知道OO设计通常试图避免使用instanceof，但那是另一回事，这个问题纯粹与性能有关。我想知道是否对性能有影响?和==一样快吗?
例如，我有一个有10个子类的基类。在接受基类的单个函数中，我检查类是否是子类的实例并执行一些例程。
我想到的另一种解决方法是使用“type id”整数原语，并使用位掩码来表示子类的类别，然后对子类“type id”与表示类别的常量掩码进行位掩码比较。
instanceof是否被JVM优化得更快?我想坚持使用Java，但应用程序的性能至关重要。如果有人曾经在这条路上走过，可以提供一些建议，那就太棒了。我是不是太挑剔了，或者专注在错误的地方去优化?
当前回答
You're focusing on the wrong thing. The difference between instanceof and any other method for checking the same thing would probably not even be measurable. If performance is critical then Java is probably the wrong language. The major reason being that you can't control when the VM decides it wants to go collect garbage, which can take the CPU to 100% for several seconds in a large program (MagicDraw 10 was great for that). Unless you are in control of every computer this program will run on you can't guarantee which version of JVM it will be on, and many of the older ones had major speed issues. If it's a small app you may be ok with Java, but if you are constantly reading and discarding data then you will notice when the GC kicks in.
其他回答
很难说一个特定的JVM是如何实现实例的，但在大多数情况下，对象与结构相当，类也是如此，每个对象结构都有一个指向它是实例的类结构的指针。实际上是instanceof for
if (o instanceof java.lang.String)
可能和下面的C代码一样快
if (objectStruct->iAmInstanceOf == &java_lang_String_class)
假设JIT编译器已经就位，并且工作出色。
考虑到这只是访问一个指针，在指针指向的某个偏移量处获得一个指针，并将其与另一个指针进行比较(这基本上与测试32位数字是否相等相同)，我认为操作实际上可以非常快。
但是，这并不一定是必须的，它在很大程度上取决于JVM。但是，如果这将成为代码中的瓶颈操作，我认为JVM实现相当糟糕。即使没有JIT编译器，只解释代码，也应该能够在几乎没有时间的情况下创建一个实例测试。
I'll get back to you on instanceof performance. But a way to avoid problem (or lack thereof) altogether would be to create a parent interface to all the subclasses on which you need to do instanceof. The interface will be a super set of all the methods in sub-classes for which you need to do instanceof check. Where a method does not apply to a specific sub-class, simply provide a dummy implementation of this method. If I didn't misunderstand the issue, this is how I've gotten around the problem in the past.
You're focusing on the wrong thing. The difference between instanceof and any other method for checking the same thing would probably not even be measurable. If performance is critical then Java is probably the wrong language. The major reason being that you can't control when the VM decides it wants to go collect garbage, which can take the CPU to 100% for several seconds in a large program (MagicDraw 10 was great for that). Unless you are in control of every computer this program will run on you can't guarantee which version of JVM it will be on, and many of the older ones had major speed issues. If it's a small app you may be ok with Java, but if you are constantly reading and discarding data then you will notice when the GC kicks in.
我有同样的问题，但因为我没有找到类似于我的用例的“性能指标”，我做了一些更多的示例代码。在我的硬件和Java 6和7上，instanceof和switch在1000万次迭代上的区别是
for 10 child classes - instanceof: 1200ms vs switch: 470ms
for 5 child classes - instanceof: 375ms vs switch: 204ms
因此，instanceof确实比较慢，特别是在大量的if-else-if语句上，但是在实际应用中差异可以忽略不计。
import java.util.Date;
public class InstanceOfVsEnum {
public static int c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6, c7, c8, c9, cA;
public static class Handler {
public enum Type { Type1, Type2, Type3, Type4, Type5, Type6, Type7, Type8, Type9, TypeA }
protected Handler(Type type) { this.type = type; }
public final Type type;
public static void addHandlerInstanceOf(Handler h) {
if( h instanceof H1) { c1++; }
else if( h instanceof H2) { c2++; }
else if( h instanceof H3) { c3++; }
else if( h instanceof H4) { c4++; }
else if( h instanceof H5) { c5++; }
else if( h instanceof H6) { c6++; }
else if( h instanceof H7) { c7++; }
else if( h instanceof H8) { c8++; }
else if( h instanceof H9) { c9++; }
else if( h instanceof HA) { cA++; }
}
public static void addHandlerSwitch(Handler h) {
switch( h.type ) {
case Type1: c1++; break;
case Type2: c2++; break;
case Type3: c3++; break;
case Type4: c4++; break;
case Type5: c5++; break;
case Type6: c6++; break;
case Type7: c7++; break;
case Type8: c8++; break;
case Type9: c9++; break;
case TypeA: cA++; break;
}
}
}
public static class H1 extends Handler { public H1() { super(Type.Type1); } }
public static class H2 extends Handler { public H2() { super(Type.Type2); } }
public static class H3 extends Handler { public H3() { super(Type.Type3); } }
public static class H4 extends Handler { public H4() { super(Type.Type4); } }
public static class H5 extends Handler { public H5() { super(Type.Type5); } }
public static class H6 extends Handler { public H6() { super(Type.Type6); } }
public static class H7 extends Handler { public H7() { super(Type.Type7); } }
public static class H8 extends Handler { public H8() { super(Type.Type8); } }
public static class H9 extends Handler { public H9() { super(Type.Type9); } }
public static class HA extends Handler { public HA() { super(Type.TypeA); } }
final static int cCycles = 10000000;
public static void main(String[] args) {
H1 h1 = new H1();
H2 h2 = new H2();
H3 h3 = new H3();
H4 h4 = new H4();
H5 h5 = new H5();
H6 h6 = new H6();
H7 h7 = new H7();
H8 h8 = new H8();
H9 h9 = new H9();
HA hA = new HA();
Date dtStart = new Date();
for( int i = 0; i < cCycles; i++ ) {
Handler.addHandlerInstanceOf(h1);
Handler.addHandlerInstanceOf(h2);
Handler.addHandlerInstanceOf(h3);
Handler.addHandlerInstanceOf(h4);
Handler.addHandlerInstanceOf(h5);
Handler.addHandlerInstanceOf(h6);
Handler.addHandlerInstanceOf(h7);
Handler.addHandlerInstanceOf(h8);
Handler.addHandlerInstanceOf(h9);
Handler.addHandlerInstanceOf(hA);
}
System.out.println("Instance of - " + (new Date().getTime() - dtStart.getTime()));
dtStart = new Date();
for( int i = 0; i < cCycles; i++ ) {
Handler.addHandlerSwitch(h1);
Handler.addHandlerSwitch(h2);
Handler.addHandlerSwitch(h3);
Handler.addHandlerSwitch(h4);
Handler.addHandlerSwitch(h5);
Handler.addHandlerSwitch(h6);
Handler.addHandlerSwitch(h7);
Handler.addHandlerSwitch(h8);
Handler.addHandlerSwitch(h9);
Handler.addHandlerSwitch(hA);
}
System.out.println("Switch of - " + (new Date().getTime() - dtStart.getTime()));
}
}
在大多数现实世界的实现中(也就是说，在真正需要instanceof的实现中，您不能像每个初学者教科书和上面的Demian所建议的那样，通过重写一个通用方法来解决它)，instanceof可能会比简单的等号更昂贵。
为什么呢?因为可能会发生的情况是，你有几个接口，它们提供了一些功能(比如，接口x, y和z)，以及一些要操作的对象，这些对象可能(或不)实现其中一个接口……但不是直接的。例如，我有:
W扩展x
A实现了w
B延伸A
C扩展B，实现y
D扩展C，实现z
假设我正在处理D的一个实例，对象D . Computing (D instanceof x)需要采用d.getClass()，循环通过它实现的接口来知道是否一个是==到x，如果不是这样做，再次递归为它们的所有祖先… 在我们的例子中，如果你对那棵树进行宽度优先的探索，假设y和z没有扩展任何东西，至少会产生8个比较……
现实世界的推导树的复杂性可能更高。在某些情况下，JIT可以优化其中的大部分，如果它能够在所有可能的情况下，将d解析为扩展x的某个实例。然而，实际上，您大部分时间都将遍历该树。
如果这成为一个问题，我建议使用处理程序映射，将对象的具体类链接到进行处理的闭包。它删除了树遍历阶段，以支持直接映射。但是，要注意，如果你为C.class设置了一个处理程序，上面的对象d将不会被识别。
这是我的2美分，我希望他们能帮助…
