for循环和for-each循环在性能上有区别吗?

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。

2014-09-26 20:57:58

其他回答

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.

2008-11-02 12:47:22

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。

2012-08-28 21:53:42

即使使用像ArrayList或Vector这样的东西，其中“get”是一个简单的数组查找，第二个循环仍然有第一个循环没有的额外开销。我预计它会比第一次慢一点。

2008-11-02 12:54:21