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);
    }
}

Java和c#中的异常性能还有待改进。

作为程序员，这迫使我们遵循“异常应该很少引起”的规则，仅仅是出于实际性能的考虑。

However, as computer scientists, we should rebel against this problematic state. The person authoring a function often has no idea how often it will be called, or whether success or failure is more likely. Only the caller has this information. Trying to avoid exceptions leads to unclear API idoms where in some cases we have only clean-but-slow exception versions, and in other cases we have fast-but-clunky return-value errors, and in still other cases we end up with both. The library implementor may have to write and maintain two versions of APIs, and the caller has to decide which of two versions to use in each situation.

这里有点乱。如果异常具有更好的性能，我们就可以避免这些笨拙的习惯用法，并按照它们应该使用的方式使用异常……作为结构化错误返回工具。

我真的希望看到异常机制使用更接近返回值的技术来实现，这样我们的性能就能更接近返回值。因为这是我们在性能敏感代码中恢复的内容。

下面是一个比较异常性能和错误返回值性能的代码示例。

公共类test {

int value;


public int getValue() {
    return value;
}

public void reset() {
    value = 0;
}

public boolean baseline_null(boolean shouldfail, int recurse_depth) {
    if (recurse_depth <= 0) {
        return shouldfail;
    } else {
        return baseline_null(shouldfail,recurse_depth-1);
    }
}

public boolean retval_error(boolean shouldfail, int recurse_depth) {
    if (recurse_depth <= 0) {
        if (shouldfail) {
            return false;
        } else {
            return true;
        }
    } else {
        boolean nested_error = retval_error(shouldfail,recurse_depth-1);
        if (nested_error) {
            return true;
        } else {
            return false;
        }
    }
}

public void exception_error(boolean shouldfail, int recurse_depth) throws Exception {
    if (recurse_depth <= 0) {
        if (shouldfail) {
            throw new Exception();
        }
    } else {
        exception_error(shouldfail,recurse_depth-1);
    }

}

public static void main(String[] args) {
    int i;
    long l;
    TestIt t = new TestIt();
    int failures;

    int ITERATION_COUNT = 100000000;


    // (0) baseline null workload
    for (int recurse_depth = 2; recurse_depth <= 10; recurse_depth+=3) {
        for (float exception_freq = 0.0f; exception_freq <= 1.0f; exception_freq += 0.25f) {            
            int EXCEPTION_MOD = (exception_freq == 0.0f) ? ITERATION_COUNT+1 : (int)(1.0f / exception_freq);            

            failures = 0;
            long start_time = System.currentTimeMillis();
            t.reset();              
            for (i = 1; i < ITERATION_COUNT; i++) {
                boolean shoulderror = (i % EXCEPTION_MOD) == 0;
                t.baseline_null(shoulderror,recurse_depth);
            }
            long elapsed_time = System.currentTimeMillis() - start_time;
            System.out.format("baseline: recurse_depth %s, exception_freqeuncy %s (%s), time elapsed %s ms\n",
                    recurse_depth, exception_freq, failures,elapsed_time);
        }
    }


    // (1) retval_error
    for (int recurse_depth = 2; recurse_depth <= 10; recurse_depth+=3) {
        for (float exception_freq = 0.0f; exception_freq <= 1.0f; exception_freq += 0.25f) {            
            int EXCEPTION_MOD = (exception_freq == 0.0f) ? ITERATION_COUNT+1 : (int)(1.0f / exception_freq);            

            failures = 0;
            long start_time = System.currentTimeMillis();
            t.reset();              
            for (i = 1; i < ITERATION_COUNT; i++) {
                boolean shoulderror = (i % EXCEPTION_MOD) == 0;
                if (!t.retval_error(shoulderror,recurse_depth)) {
                    failures++;
                }
            }
            long elapsed_time = System.currentTimeMillis() - start_time;
            System.out.format("retval_error: recurse_depth %s, exception_freqeuncy %s (%s), time elapsed %s ms\n",
                    recurse_depth, exception_freq, failures,elapsed_time);
        }
    }

    // (2) exception_error
    for (int recurse_depth = 2; recurse_depth <= 10; recurse_depth+=3) {
        for (float exception_freq = 0.0f; exception_freq <= 1.0f; exception_freq += 0.25f) {            
            int EXCEPTION_MOD = (exception_freq == 0.0f) ? ITERATION_COUNT+1 : (int)(1.0f / exception_freq);            

            failures = 0;
            long start_time = System.currentTimeMillis();
            t.reset();              
            for (i = 1; i < ITERATION_COUNT; i++) {
                boolean shoulderror = (i % EXCEPTION_MOD) == 0;
                try {
                    t.exception_error(shoulderror,recurse_depth);
                } catch (Exception e) {
                    failures++;
                }
            }
            long elapsed_time = System.currentTimeMillis() - start_time;
            System.out.format("exception_error: recurse_depth %s, exception_freqeuncy %s (%s), time elapsed %s ms\n",
                    recurse_depth, exception_freq, failures,elapsed_time);              
        }
    }
}

}

结果如下:

baseline: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.0 (0), time elapsed 683 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.25 (0), time elapsed 790 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.5 (0), time elapsed 768 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.75 (0), time elapsed 749 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 1.0 (0), time elapsed 731 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.0 (0), time elapsed 923 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.25 (0), time elapsed 971 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.5 (0), time elapsed 982 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.75 (0), time elapsed 947 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 1.0 (0), time elapsed 937 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.0 (0), time elapsed 1154 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.25 (0), time elapsed 1149 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.5 (0), time elapsed 1133 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.75 (0), time elapsed 1117 ms
baseline: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 1.0 (0), time elapsed 1116 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.0 (0), time elapsed 742 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.25 (24999999), time elapsed 743 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.5 (49999999), time elapsed 734 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.75 (99999999), time elapsed 723 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 1.0 (99999999), time elapsed 728 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.0 (0), time elapsed 920 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.25 (24999999), time elapsed 1121   ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.5 (49999999), time elapsed 1037 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.75 (99999999), time elapsed 1141   ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 1.0 (99999999), time elapsed 1130 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.0 (0), time elapsed 1218 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.25 (24999999), time elapsed 1334  ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.5 (49999999), time elapsed 1478 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.75 (99999999), time elapsed 1637 ms
retval_error: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 1.0 (99999999), time elapsed 1655 ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.0 (0), time elapsed 726 ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.25 (24999999), time elapsed 17487   ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.5 (49999999), time elapsed 33763   ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 0.75 (99999999), time elapsed 67367   ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 2, exception_freqeuncy 1.0 (99999999), time elapsed 66990 ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.0 (0), time elapsed 924 ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.25 (24999999), time elapsed 23775  ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.5 (49999999), time elapsed 46326 ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 0.75 (99999999), time elapsed 91707 ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 5, exception_freqeuncy 1.0 (99999999), time elapsed 91580 ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.0 (0), time elapsed 1144 ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.25 (24999999), time elapsed 30440 ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.5 (49999999), time elapsed 59116   ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 0.75 (99999999), time elapsed 116678 ms
exception_error: recurse_depth 8, exception_freqeuncy 1.0 (99999999), time elapsed 116477 ms

检查和传播返回值与基线空调用相比确实增加了一些成本，而该成本与调用深度成正比。在调用链深度为8时，错误返回值检查版本比不检查返回值的基线版本慢了约27%。

相比之下，异常性能不是调用深度的函数，而是异常频率的函数。然而，随着异常频率的增加，这种退化更为显著。当错误频率只有25%时，代码运行速度变慢了24倍。当错误频率为100%时，异常版本几乎要慢100倍。

这在我看来可能是在我们的异常实现中做出了错误的权衡。异常可以更快，可以避免代价高昂的跟踪遍历，也可以直接将异常转换为编译器支持的返回值检查。在此之前，当我们希望代码运行得更快时，我们不得不避免它们。

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

不幸的是，我的回答太长了，不能在这里发表。所以让我在这里总结一下，并向你推荐http://www.fuwjax.com/how-slow-are-java-exceptions/以获得更具体的细节。

这里真正的问题不是“与“从未失败的代码”相比，“将失败报告为异常”的速度有多慢?”，正如人们所接受的回答可能会让你相信的那样。相反，问题应该是“与其他方式报告的失败相比，‘作为异常报告的失败’有多慢?”通常，报告失败的另外两种方法是使用哨兵值或使用结果包装器。

哨兵值是在成功情况下返回一个类，在失败情况下返回另一个类的尝试。你几乎可以把它看作是返回一个异常而不是抛出一个异常。这需要一个与success对象共享的父类，然后执行“instanceof”检查和几个类型转换来获得成功或失败的信息。

事实证明，冒着类型安全的风险，Sentinel值比异常快，但仅快大约2倍。现在，这可能看起来很多，但2倍只包括实现差异的成本。实际上，这个因素要低得多，因为我们可能失败的方法要比本页其他地方示例代码中的几个算术运算符有趣得多。

另一方面，结果包装器根本不牺牲类型安全。它们将成功和失败信息包装在单个类中。因此，它们提供了一个“isSuccess()”来代替“instanceof”，并为成功和失败对象提供了getter。但是，结果对象大约比使用异常慢2倍。事实证明，每次创建一个新的包装器对象比有时抛出异常要昂贵得多。

最重要的是，异常是语言提供的一种指示方法可能失败的方式。没有其他方法可以仅从API判断哪些方法总是(大部分)工作，哪些方法报告失败。

异常比哨兵更安全，比结果对象更快，并且比两者都不那么令人惊讶。我并不是建议用try/catch替换if/else，但是异常是报告失败的正确方式，即使在业务逻辑中也是如此。

也就是说，我想指出的是，我遇到的两种最常见的实质上影响性能的方法是创建不必要的对象和嵌套循环。如果可以在创建异常和不创建异常之间选择，请不要创建异常。如果要在有时创建异常或始终创建另一个对象之间做出选择，那么就创建异常。

比较一下，假设是Integer。将parseInt转换为以下方法，该方法在不可解析数据的情况下只返回默认值，而不会抛出异常:

  public static int parseUnsignedInt(String s, int defaultValue) {
    final int strLength = s.length();
    if (strLength == 0)
      return defaultValue;
    int value = 0;
    for (int i=strLength-1; i>=0; i--) {
      int c = s.charAt(i);
      if (c > 47 && c < 58) {
        c -= 48;
        for (int j=strLength-i; j!=1; j--)
          c *= 10;
        value += c;
      } else {
        return defaultValue;
      }
    }
    return value < 0 ? /* übergebener wert > Integer.MAX_VALUE? */ defaultValue : value;
  }

只要您将这两种方法应用于“有效”数据，它们将以大致相同的速率工作(即使Integer。parseInt设法处理更复杂的数据)。但是当您试图解析无效数据时(例如解析“abc”1.000.000次)，性能上的差异应该是至关重要的。