以下是Android开发团队对两者差异的简要分析:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZOf3pOAM6A

The result is that there is a difference, and in very restrained environments with very large lists it could be a noticeable difference. In their testing, the for each loop took twice as long. However, their testing was over an arraylist of 400,000 integers. The actual difference per element in the array was 6 microseconds. I haven't tested and they didn't say, but I would expect the difference to be slightly larger using objects rather than primitives, but even still unless you are building library code where you have no idea the scale of what you will be asked to iterate over, I think the difference is not worth stressing about.

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。

奇怪的是，没有人提到显而易见的——foreach分配内存(以迭代器的形式)，而普通的for循环不分配任何内存。对于Android游戏来说，这是个问题，因为这意味着垃圾收集器将周期性地运行。在游戏中，你不希望垃圾回收器运行……永远。所以不要在你的绘制(或渲染)方法中使用foreach循环。

1. for(Object o: objectArrayList){
    o.DoSomthing();
}
and

2. for(int i=0; i<objectArrayList.size(); i++){
    objectArrayList.get(i).DoSomthing();
}

两者都做同样的事情，但为了方便和安全的编程使用，在第二种使用方式中有容易出错的可能性。

使用迭代器总是比使用索引更好。这是因为iterator最有可能针对List实现进行了优化，而索引(调用get)可能没有。例如，LinkedList是一个List，但是通过它的元素建立索引将比使用迭代器迭代慢。

所有这些循环都是一样的，我只是想在发表我的观点之前展示一下。

首先，循环List的经典方法:

for (int i=0; i < strings.size(); i++) { /* do something using strings.get(i) */ }

其次，这是首选的方法，因为它更不容易出错(你有多少次做过“哎呀，在这些循环中循环中混合变量i和j”的事情?)

for (String s : strings) { /* do something using s */ }

第三，微优化for循环:

int size = strings.size();
for (int i = -1; ++i < size;) { /* do something using strings.get(i) */ }

现在真正的两美分:至少当我测试这些时，第三个是最快的，当计算每种类型的循环所花费的毫秒数时，其中一个简单的操作重复了数百万次——这是在Windows上使用Java 5和jre1.6u10，如果有人感兴趣的话。

While it at least seems to be so that the third one is the fastest, you really should ask yourself if you want to take the risk of implementing this peephole optimization everywhere in your looping code since from what I've seen, actual looping isn't usually the most time consuming part of any real program (or maybe I'm just working on the wrong field, who knows). And also like I mentioned in the pretext for the Java for-each loop (some refer to it as Iterator loop and others as for-in loop) you are less likely to hit that one particular stupid bug when using it. And before debating how this even can even be faster than the other ones, remember that javac doesn't optimize bytecode at all (well, nearly at all anyway), it just compiles it.

如果你喜欢微观优化，或者你的软件使用了很多递归循环，那么你可能会对第三种循环感兴趣。只需要记住，在更改for循环之前和之后，都要对软件进行良好的基准测试。