Java的方式是，您应该考虑哪种数据抽象最适合您的需求。记住，在Java中，List是抽象的数据类型，而不是具体的数据类型。您应该将字符串声明为List，然后使用ArrayList实现初始化它。

List<String> strings = new ArrayList<String>();

抽象数据类型和特定实现的分离是面向对象编程的一个关键方面。

An ArrayList implements the List Abstract Data Type using an array as its underlying implementation. Access speed is virtually identical to an array, with the additional advantages of being able to add and subtract elements to a List (although this is an O(n) operation with an ArrayList) and that if you decide to change the underlying implementation later on you can. For example, if you realize you need synchronized access, you can change the implementation to a Vector without rewriting all your code.

事实上，ArrayList是专门为在大多数情况下替换低级数组构造而设计的。如果Java是今天设计的，那么完全有可能将数组完全排除在外，转而使用数组列表结构。

由于数组将所有数据保存在一个连续的内存块中(与list不同)，使用数组存储数千个字符串会导致问题吗?

In Java, all collections store only references to objects, not the objects themselves. Both arrays and ArrayList will store a few thousand references in a contiguous array, so they are essentially identical. You can consider that a contiguous block of a few thousand 32-bit references will always be readily available on modern hardware. This does not guarantee that you will not run out of memory altogether, of course, just that the contiguous block of memory requirement is not difficult to fufil.

既然这里已经有了很多好的答案，我想给你一些其他的实际观点的信息，这是插入和迭代性能的比较:Java中的基元数组与链表。

这是实际的简单性能检查。因此，结果将取决于机器的性能。

用于此的源代码如下:

import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.LinkedList;

public class Array_vs_LinkedList {

    private final static int MAX_SIZE = 40000000;

    public static void main(String[] args) {

        LinkedList lList = new LinkedList(); 

        /* insertion performance check */

        long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();

        for (int i=0; i<MAX_SIZE; i++) {
            lList.add(i);
        }

        long stopTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
        long elapsedTime = stopTime - startTime;
        System.out.println("[Insert]LinkedList insert operation with " + MAX_SIZE + " number of integer elapsed time is " + elapsedTime + " millisecond.");

        int[] arr = new int[MAX_SIZE];

        startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
        for(int i=0; i<MAX_SIZE; i++){
            arr[i] = i; 
        }

        stopTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
        elapsedTime = stopTime - startTime;
        System.out.println("[Insert]Array Insert operation with " + MAX_SIZE + " number of integer elapsed time is " + elapsedTime + " millisecond.");


        /* iteration performance check */

        startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();

        Iterator itr = lList.iterator();

        while(itr.hasNext()) {
            itr.next();
            // System.out.println("Linked list running : " + itr.next());
        }

        stopTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
        elapsedTime = stopTime - startTime;
        System.out.println("[Loop]LinkedList iteration with " + MAX_SIZE + " number of integer elapsed time is " + elapsedTime + " millisecond.");


        startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();

        int t = 0;
        for (int i=0; i < MAX_SIZE; i++) {
            t = arr[i];
            // System.out.println("array running : " + i);
        }

        stopTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
        elapsedTime = stopTime - startTime;
        System.out.println("[Loop]Array iteration with " + MAX_SIZE + " number of integer elapsed time is " + elapsedTime + " millisecond.");
    }
}

表现结果如下:

您应该更喜欢泛型类型而不是数组。正如其他人所提到的，数组是不灵活的，不具有泛型类型的表达能力。(它们确实支持运行时类型检查，但这与泛型类型混在一起很糟糕。)

但是，与往常一样，在优化时，你应该始终遵循以下步骤:

Don't optimize until you have a nice, clean, and working version of your code. Changing to generic types could very well be motivated at this step already. When you have a version that is nice and clean, decide if it is fast enough. If it isn't fast enough, measure its performance. This step is important for two reasons. If you don't measure you won't (1) know the impact of any optimizations you make and (2) know where to optimize. Optimize the hottest part of your code. Measure again. This is just as important as measuring before. If the optimization didn't improve things, revert it. Remember, the code without the optimization was clean, nice, and working.

数组列表在内部使用数组对象来添加(或存储)对象 元素。换句话说，ArrayList由Array数据支持 结构。ArrayList的数组是可调整大小的(或动态的)。

Array比ArrayList快，因为ArrayList内部使用数组。如果我们可以直接在数组中添加元素，而间接地在数组中添加元素 数组通过数组列表总是直接机制比间接机制快。

在ArrayList类中有两个重载的add()方法:

add(Object):将一个对象添加到列表末尾。 add(int index, Object):将指定对象插入到列表的指定位置。

数组列表的大小如何动态增长?

public boolean add(E e)        
{       
     ensureCapacity(size+1);
     elementData[size++] = e;         
     return true;
}

An important point to note from the above code is that we are checking the capacity of the ArrayList, before adding the element. ensureCapacity() determines what is the current size of occupied elements and what is the maximum size of the array. If the size of the filled elements (including the new element to be added to the ArrayList class) is greater than the maximum size of the array then increase the size of the array. But the size of the array can not be increased dynamically. So what happens internally is new Array is created with the capacity

到 Java 6

int newCapacity = (oldCapacity * 3)/2 + 1;

(更新)来自Java 7

 int newCapacity = oldCapacity + (oldCapacity >> 1);

此外，旧数组中的数据被复制到新数组中。

数组列表中有开销方法这就是为什么数组比数组列表快。

Java的方式是，您应该考虑哪种数据抽象最适合您的需求。记住，在Java中，List是抽象的数据类型，而不是具体的数据类型。您应该将字符串声明为List，然后使用ArrayList实现初始化它。

List<String> strings = new ArrayList<String>();

抽象数据类型和特定实现的分离是面向对象编程的一个关键方面。

An ArrayList implements the List Abstract Data Type using an array as its underlying implementation. Access speed is virtually identical to an array, with the additional advantages of being able to add and subtract elements to a List (although this is an O(n) operation with an ArrayList) and that if you decide to change the underlying implementation later on you can. For example, if you realize you need synchronized access, you can change the implementation to a Vector without rewriting all your code.

事实上，ArrayList是专门为在大多数情况下替换低级数组构造而设计的。如果Java是今天设计的，那么完全有可能将数组完全排除在外，转而使用数组列表结构。

由于数组将所有数据保存在一个连续的内存块中(与list不同)，使用数组存储数千个字符串会导致问题吗?

In Java, all collections store only references to objects, not the objects themselves. Both arrays and ArrayList will store a few thousand references in a contiguous array, so they are essentially identical. You can consider that a contiguous block of a few thousand 32-bit references will always be readily available on modern hardware. This does not guarantee that you will not run out of memory altogether, of course, just that the contiguous block of memory requirement is not difficult to fufil.

虽然建议使用数组列表的答案在大多数情况下是有意义的，但相对性能的实际问题还没有真正得到答案。

你可以用数组做以下几件事:

创建它 设置一个项目 买一件物品 克隆/复制它

一般的结论

虽然get和set操作在数组列表(resp。在我的机器上每次调用1和3纳秒)，对于任何非密集的用途，使用ArrayList相对于数组的开销非常小。然而，有几件事要记住:

在列表上调整大小操作(当调用list.add(…)时)代价很高，应该尽可能将初始容量设置为适当的级别(注意，在使用数组时也会出现同样的问题) 在处理原语时，数组可以明显更快，因为它们可以避免许多装箱/拆箱转换 一个只在数组列表中获取/设置值的应用程序(不是很常见!)通过切换到数组可以看到超过25%的性能增益

详细的结果

下面是我在标准x86桌面机器上使用JDK 7使用jmh基准测试库(以纳秒为单位)测量这三个操作的结果。请注意，ArrayList在测试中从不调整大小，以确保结果具有可比性。这里有基准代码。

数组/ ArrayList创造

我运行了4个测试，执行以下语句:

createArray1: Integer[] array = new Integer[1]; createList1: List<Integer> List = new ArrayList<> (1); createArray10000: Integer[] array = new Integer[10000]; createList10000: List<Integer> List = new ArrayList<> (10000);

结果(以纳秒为单位，95%置信度):

a.p.g.a.ArrayVsList.CreateArray1         [10.933, 11.097]
a.p.g.a.ArrayVsList.CreateList1          [10.799, 11.046]
a.p.g.a.ArrayVsList.CreateArray10000    [394.899, 404.034]
a.p.g.a.ArrayVsList.CreateList10000     [396.706, 401.266]

结论:无明显差异。

get操作

我运行了2个测试，执行以下语句:

返回list.get(0); 返回数组[0];

结果(以纳秒为单位，95%置信度):

a.p.g.a.ArrayVsList.getArray   [2.958, 2.984]
a.p.g.a.ArrayVsList.getList    [3.841, 3.874]

结论:从数组中获取信息比从ArrayList中获取信息快25%，尽管差异仅在1纳秒的量级上。

集合操作

我运行了2个测试，执行以下语句:

setList:列表。设置(0,价值); setArray:数组[0]=值;

结果(以纳秒为单位):

a.p.g.a.ArrayVsList.setArray   [4.201, 4.236]
a.p.g.a.ArrayVsList.setList    [6.783, 6.877]

结论:在数组上的set操作比在列表上快40%左右，但是，对于get，每个set操作需要几纳秒——所以为了达到1秒的差异，需要在列表/数组中设置项数亿次!

无性系/ copy

ArrayList的复制构造函数委托给数组。因此，性能与数组复制相同(通过克隆复制数组，数组。copyOf或System。arrayCopy在性能方面没有实质性的差异)。