问:Java中的异常处理真的很慢吗?
传统观点以及大量谷歌结果表明，不应该将异常逻辑用于Java中的正常程序流。通常会给出两个原因，
它真的很慢——甚至比普通代码慢一个数量级(给出的原因各不相同)，
and
它很混乱，因为人们只希望在异常代码中处理错误。
这个问题是关于第一条的。
As an example, this page describes Java exception handling as "very slow" and relates the slowness to the creation of the exception message string - "this string is then used in creating the exception object that is thrown. This is not fast." The article Effective Exception Handling in Java says that "the reason for this is due to the object creation aspect of exception handling, which thereby makes throwing exceptions inherently slow". Another reason out there is that the stack trace generation is what slows it down.
My testing (using Java 1.6.0_07, Java HotSpot 10.0, on 32 bit Linux), indicates that exception handling is no slower than regular code. I tried running a method in a loop that executes some code. At the end of the method, I use a boolean to indicate whether to return or throw. This way the actual processing is the same. I tried running the methods in different orders and averaging my test times, thinking it may have been the JVM warming up. In all my tests, the throw was at least as fast as the return, if not faster (up to 3.1% faster). I am completely open to the possibility that my tests were wrong, but I haven't seen anything out there in the way of the code sample, test comparisons, or results in the last year or two that show exception handling in Java to actually be slow.
引导我走上这条路的是我需要使用的一个API，它将抛出异常作为正常控制逻辑的一部分。我想纠正它们的用法，但现在我可能做不到。我是否应该赞美他们的前瞻思维?
在论文《即时编译中的高效Java异常处理》中，作者建议，即使没有抛出异常，仅异常处理程序的存在就足以阻止JIT编译器正确优化代码，从而降低代码的速度。我还没有测试过这个理论。
我已经扩展了@Mecki和@incarnate给出的答案，没有为Java填充stacktrace。
在Java 7+中，我们可以使用Throwable(String message, Throwable cause, boolean enableSuppression,boolean writableStackTrace)。但是对于Java6，请参阅我对这个问题的回答
// This one will regularly throw one
public void method4(int i) throws NoStackTraceThrowable {
value = ((value + i) / i) << 1;
// i & 1 is equally fast to calculate as i & 0xFFFFFFF; it is both
// an AND operation between two integers. The size of the number plays
// no role. AND on 32 BIT always ANDs all 32 bits
if ((i & 0x1) == 1) {
throw new NoStackTraceThrowable();
}
}
// This one will regularly throw one
public void method5(int i) throws NoStackTraceRuntimeException {
value = ((value + i) / i) << 1;
// i & 1 is equally fast to calculate as i & 0xFFFFFFF; it is both
// an AND operation between two integers. The size of the number plays
// no role. AND on 32 BIT always ANDs all 32 bits
if ((i & 0x1) == 1) {
throw new NoStackTraceRuntimeException();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int i;
long l;
Test t = new Test();
l = System.currentTimeMillis();
t.reset();
for (i = 1; i < 100000000; i++) {
try {
t.method4(i);
} catch (NoStackTraceThrowable e) {
// Do nothing here, as we will get here
}
}
l = System.currentTimeMillis() - l;
System.out.println( "method4 took " + l + " ms, result was " + t.getValue() );
l = System.currentTimeMillis();
t.reset();
for (i = 1; i < 100000000; i++) {
try {
t.method5(i);
} catch (RuntimeException e) {
// Do nothing here, as we will get here
}
}
l = System.currentTimeMillis() - l;
System.out.println( "method5 took " + l + " ms, result was " + t.getValue() );
}
输出与Java 1.6.0_45，在Core i7, 8GB RAM:
method1 took 883 ms, result was 2
method2 took 882 ms, result was 2
method3 took 32270 ms, result was 2 // throws Exception
method4 took 8114 ms, result was 2 // throws NoStackTraceThrowable
method5 took 8086 ms, result was 2 // throws NoStackTraceRuntimeException
因此，返回值的方法仍然比引发异常的方法更快。恕我直言，我们不能仅仅为成功流和错误流使用返回类型来设计一个清晰的API。在没有stacktrace的情况下抛出异常的方法比普通异常快4-5倍。
谢谢@Greg
public class NoStackTraceThrowable extends Throwable {
public NoStackTraceThrowable() {
super("my special throwable", null, false, false);
}
}
Aleksey Shipilëv做了一个非常彻底的分析，他在各种条件组合下对Java异常进行了基准测试:
新创建的异常vs预先创建的异常
启用与禁用堆栈跟踪
请求的堆栈跟踪vs从未请求的堆栈跟踪
在顶层捕获vs在每一层重新抛出vs在每一层被链接/包裹
不同级别的Java调用堆栈深度
无内联优化vs极端内联vs默认设置
用户定义字段读与不读
他还将它们与在不同错误频率级别检查错误代码的性能进行了比较。
结论(逐字摘自他的帖子)如下:
Truly exceptional exceptions are beautifully performant. If you use them as designed, and only communicate the truly exceptional cases among the overwhelmingly large number of non-exceptional cases handled by regular code, then using exceptions is the performance win.
The performance costs of exceptions have two major components: stack trace construction when Exception is instantiated and stack unwinding during Exception throw.
Stack trace construction costs are proportional to stack depth at the moment of exception instantiation. That is already bad because who on Earth knows the stack depth at which this throwing method would be called? Even if you turn off the stack trace generation and/or cache the exceptions, you can only get rid of this part of the performance cost.
Stack unwinding costs depend on how lucky we are with bringing the exception handler closer in the compiled code. Carefully structuring the code to avoid deep exception handlers lookup is probably helping us get luckier.
Should we eliminate both effects, the performance cost of exceptions is that of the local branch. No matter how beautiful it sounds, that does not mean you should use Exceptions as the usual control flow, because in that case you are at the mercy of optimizing compiler! You should only use them in truly exceptional cases, where the exception frequency amortizes the possible unlucky cost of raising the actual exception.
The optimistic rule-of-thumb seems to be 10^-4 frequency for exceptions is exceptional enough. That, of course, depends on the heavy-weights of the exceptions themselves, the exact actions taken in exception handlers, etc.
结果是，当没有抛出异常时，您不会付出代价，因此当异常条件足够罕见时，异常处理比每次都使用if更快。这篇文章的全文非常值得一读。
我改变了上面的@Mecki的答案，让method1在调用方法中返回一个布尔值和一个检查，因为你不能用什么都不替换一个异常。在运行两次之后，method1仍然是最快的或者和method2一样快。
下面是代码的快照:
// Calculates without exception
public boolean method1(int i) {
value = ((value + i) / i) << 1;
// Will never be true
return ((i & 0xFFFFFFF) == 1000000000);
}
....
for (i = 1; i < 100000000; i++) {
if (t.method1(i)) {
System.out.println("Will never be true!");
}
}
和结果:
运行1
method1 took 841 ms, result was 2
method2 took 841 ms, result was 2
method3 took 85058 ms, result was 2
运行2
method1 took 821 ms, result was 2
method2 took 838 ms, result was 2
method3 took 85929 ms, result was 2
供你参考，我扩展了Mecki做的实验:
method1 took 1733 ms, result was 2
method2 took 1248 ms, result was 2
method3 took 83997 ms, result was 2
method4 took 1692 ms, result was 2
method5 took 60946 ms, result was 2
method6 took 25746 ms, result was 2
前3个和Mecki的一样(我的笔记本电脑明显慢一些)。
method4和method3是一样的，除了它创建了一个新的Integer(1)而不是抛出一个新的Exception()。
method5类似于method3，除了它创建了新的Exception()而不抛出它。
Method6和method3很像，只是它会抛出一个预先创建的异常(一个实例变量)，而不是创建一个新异常。
在Java中，抛出异常的大部分开销是收集堆栈跟踪所花费的时间，这发生在创建异常对象时。抛出异常的实际成本虽然很大，但比创建异常的成本要小得多。
