我建议使用String.format()是更好的实践。主要原因是String.format()可以更容易地使用从资源文件加载的文本进行本地化，而拼接如果不为每种语言生成带有不同代码的新可执行文件就无法进行本地化。

如果你打算让你的应用程序本地化，你也应该养成为你的格式标记指定参数位置的习惯:

"Hello %1$s the time is %2$t"

然后可以对其进行本地化，并交换名称和时间令牌，而不需要重新编译可执行文件以考虑不同的顺序。对于参数位置，你也可以重复使用相同的参数，而不需要将其传递给函数两次:

String.format("Hello %1$s, your name is %1$s and the time is %2$t", name, time)

哪一个更容易读，取决于你的大脑如何工作。

你已经得到答案了。

这是个人喜好的问题。

我认为，字符串连接稍微快一些，但这应该可以忽略不计。

String.format()不仅仅是连接字符串。例如，可以使用String.format()显示特定地区的数字。

然而，如果你不关心本地化，就没有功能上的区别。 也许这个连接比另一个快，但在大多数情况下，它可以忽略不计。

我没有做任何具体的基准测试，但我认为连接可能更快。String.format()创建一个新的Formatter，该Formatter反过来创建一个新的StringBuilder(大小只有16个字符)。这是一个相当大的开销，特别是当您正在格式化一个较长的字符串并且StringBuilder必须不断调整大小时。

然而，串联不太有用，也更难阅读。一如既往，有必要对代码进行基准测试，看看哪个更好。在服务器应用程序中，当你的资源包、locale等加载到内存中，代码被jit后，这些差异可以忽略不计。

也许作为一个最佳实践，它将是一个好主意，创建自己的Formatter与适当大小的StringBuilder(可追加的)和地区，并使用它，如果你有很多格式化要做。

性能:

public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {      
  long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
  for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++){
    String s = "Hi " + i + "; Hi to you " + i*2;
  }
  long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
  System.out.println("Concatenation = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond") ;

  start = System.currentTimeMillis();
  for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++){
    String s = String.format("Hi %s; Hi to you %s",i, + i*2);
  }
  end = System.currentTimeMillis();
  System.out.println("Format = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");
}

授时结果如下:

串联= 265毫秒 格式= 4141毫秒

因此，连接比String.format快得多。

你不能比较字符串连接和字符串。格式由上面的程序。

你也可以尝试交换使用你的字符串的位置。格式和连接在你的代码块如下所示

public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {      
  long start = System.currentTimeMillis();

  for( int i=0;i<1000000; i++){
    String s = String.format( "Hi %s; Hi to you %s",i, + i*2);
  }

  long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
  System.out.println("Format = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");
  start = System.currentTimeMillis();

  for( int i=0;i<1000000; i++){
    String s = "Hi " + i + "; Hi to you " + i*2;
  }

  end = System.currentTimeMillis();
  System.out.println("Concatenation = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond") ;
}

您会惊讶地发现，Format在这里工作得更快。这是因为创建的初始对象可能不会被释放，内存分配可能会出现问题，从而影响性能。

可能会有明显的差别。

字符串。Format相当复杂，在底层使用正则表达式，所以不要习惯在任何地方使用它，只在需要它的地方使用。

StringBuilder会快一个数量级(这里有人已经指出了)。

由于有关于性能的讨论，我想我应该添加一个包含StringBuilder的比较。事实上，它比concat更快，当然也比String更快。格式选项。

为了使这成为一种苹果对苹果的比较，我在循环中而不是在外部实例化了一个新的StringBuilder(这实际上比只实例化一个更快，这很可能是由于在一个构建器的末尾为循环追加重新分配空间的开销)。

    String formatString = "Hi %s; Hi to you %s";

    long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
        String s = String.format(formatString, i, +i * 2);
    }

    long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
    log.info("Format = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

    start = System.currentTimeMillis();

    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
        String s = "Hi " + i + "; Hi to you " + i * 2;
    }

    end = System.currentTimeMillis();

    log.info("Concatenation = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

    start = System.currentTimeMillis();

    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
        StringBuilder bldString = new StringBuilder("Hi ");
        bldString.append(i).append("; Hi to you ").append(i * 2);
    }

    end = System.currentTimeMillis();

    log.info("String Builder = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

2012-01-11 16:30:46,058 INFO [TestMain] - Format = 1416毫秒 2012-01-11 16:30:46,190 INFO [TestMain] -连接= 134毫秒 2012-01-11 16:30:46,313 INFO [TestMain] - String Builder = 117毫秒

.format的一个问题是失去了静态类型安全性。格式的参数可能过少，格式说明符的类型也可能错误——这两种情况都会导致运行时出现IllegalFormatException异常，因此可能会生成破坏生产的日志代码。

相反，+的参数可以由编译器测试。

printf的安全历史(格式化函数是在它的基础上建模的)是漫长而可怕的。

下面是与上面相同的测试，只是修改了对StringBuilder调用toString()方法。下面的结果表明，StringBuilder方法比使用+操作符的字符串连接稍微慢一点。

文件:StringTest.java

class StringTest {

  public static void main(String[] args) {

    String formatString = "Hi %s; Hi to you %s";

    long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
        String s = String.format(formatString, i, +i * 2);
    }

    long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
    System.out.println("Format = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

    start = System.currentTimeMillis();

    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
        String s = "Hi " + i + "; Hi to you " + i * 2;
    }

    end = System.currentTimeMillis();

    System.out.println("Concatenation = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

    start = System.currentTimeMillis();

    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
        StringBuilder bldString = new StringBuilder("Hi ");
        bldString.append(i).append("Hi to you ").append(i * 2).toString();
    }

    end = System.currentTimeMillis();

    System.out.println("String Builder = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

  }
}

Shell命令:(编译并运行StringTest 5次)

> javac StringTest.java
> sh -c "for i in \$(seq 1 5); do echo \"Run \${i}\"; java StringTest; done"

结果:

Run 1
Format = 1290 millisecond
Concatenation = 115 millisecond
String Builder = 130 millisecond

Run 2
Format = 1265 millisecond
Concatenation = 114 millisecond
String Builder = 126 millisecond

Run 3
Format = 1303 millisecond
Concatenation = 114 millisecond
String Builder = 127 millisecond

Run 4
Format = 1297 millisecond
Concatenation = 114 millisecond
String Builder = 127 millisecond

Run 5
Format = 1270 millisecond
Concatenation = 114 millisecond
String Builder = 126 millisecond

这是一个以毫秒为单位的多个样本大小的测试。

public class Time {

public static String sysFile = "/sys/class/camera/rear/rear_flash";
public static String cmdString = "echo %s > " + sysFile;

public static void main(String[] args) {

  int i = 1;
  for(int run=1; run <= 12; run++){
      for(int test =1; test <= 2 ; test++){
        System.out.println(
                String.format("\nTEST: %s, RUN: %s, Iterations: %s",run,test,i));
        test(run, i);
      }
      System.out.println("\n____________________________");
      i = i*3;
  }
}

public static void test(int run, int iterations){

      long start = System.nanoTime();
      for( int i=0;i<iterations; i++){
          String s = "echo " + i + " > "+ sysFile;
      }
      long t = System.nanoTime() - start;   
      String r = String.format("  %-13s =%10d %s", "Concatenation",t,"nanosecond");
      System.out.println(r) ;


     start = System.nanoTime();       
     for( int i=0;i<iterations; i++){
         String s =  String.format(cmdString, i);
     }
     t = System.nanoTime() - start; 
     r = String.format("  %-13s =%10d %s", "Format",t,"nanosecond");
     System.out.println(r);

      start = System.nanoTime();          
      for( int i=0;i<iterations; i++){
          StringBuilder b = new StringBuilder("echo ");
          b.append(i).append(" > ").append(sysFile);
          String s = b.toString();
      }
     t = System.nanoTime() - start; 
     r = String.format("  %-13s =%10d %s", "StringBuilder",t,"nanosecond");
     System.out.println(r);
}

}

TEST: 1, RUN: 1, Iterations: 1
  Concatenation =     14911 nanosecond
  Format        =     45026 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =      3509 nanosecond

TEST: 1, RUN: 2, Iterations: 1
  Concatenation =      3509 nanosecond
  Format        =     38594 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =      3509 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 2, RUN: 1, Iterations: 3
  Concatenation =      8479 nanosecond
  Format        =     94438 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =      5263 nanosecond

TEST: 2, RUN: 2, Iterations: 3
  Concatenation =      4970 nanosecond
  Format        =     92976 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =      5848 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 3, RUN: 1, Iterations: 9
  Concatenation =     11403 nanosecond
  Format        =    287115 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     14326 nanosecond

TEST: 3, RUN: 2, Iterations: 9
  Concatenation =     12280 nanosecond
  Format        =    209051 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     11818 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 5, RUN: 1, Iterations: 81
  Concatenation =     54383 nanosecond
  Format        =   1503113 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     40056 nanosecond

TEST: 5, RUN: 2, Iterations: 81
  Concatenation =     44149 nanosecond
  Format        =   1264241 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     34208 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 6, RUN: 1, Iterations: 243
  Concatenation =     76018 nanosecond
  Format        =   3210891 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     76603 nanosecond

TEST: 6, RUN: 2, Iterations: 243
  Concatenation =     91222 nanosecond
  Format        =   2716773 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     73972 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 8, RUN: 1, Iterations: 2187
  Concatenation =    527450 nanosecond
  Format        =  10291108 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =    885027 nanosecond

TEST: 8, RUN: 2, Iterations: 2187
  Concatenation =    526865 nanosecond
  Format        =   6294307 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =    591773 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 10, RUN: 1, Iterations: 19683
  Concatenation =   4592961 nanosecond
  Format        =  60114307 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =   2129387 nanosecond

TEST: 10, RUN: 2, Iterations: 19683
  Concatenation =   1850166 nanosecond
  Format        =  35940524 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =   1885544 nanosecond

  ____________________________

TEST: 12, RUN: 1, Iterations: 177147
  Concatenation =  26847286 nanosecond
  Format        = 126332877 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =  17578914 nanosecond

TEST: 12, RUN: 2, Iterations: 177147
  Concatenation =  24405056 nanosecond
  Format        = 129707207 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =  12253840 nanosecond

一般来说，字符串连接应该优先于string .format。后者有两个主要缺点:

它不以本地方式对要构建的字符串进行编码。 构建过程编码在字符串中。

第一点，我的意思是不可能理解String.format()调用在一次连续传递中所做的事情。人们被迫在格式字符串和参数之间来回切换，同时计算参数的位置。对于短连接，这不是什么大问题。但是，在这些情况下，字符串连接不那么详细。

第2点，我的意思是构建过程的重要部分编码在格式字符串中(使用DSL)。使用字符串表示代码有很多缺点。它本身不是类型安全的，并且使语法高亮显示、代码分析和优化等变得复杂。

当然，在使用Java语言之外的工具或框架时，可能会出现新的因素。

It takes a little time to get used to String.Format, but it's worth it in most cases. In the world of NRA (never repeat anything) it's extremely useful to keep your tokenized messages (logging or user) in a Constant library (I prefer what amounts to a static class) and call them as necessary with String.Format regardless of whether you are localizing or not. Trying to use such a library with a concatenation method is harder to read, troubleshoot, proofread, and manage with any any approach that requires concatenation. Replacement is an option, but I doubt it's performant. After years of use, my biggest problem with String.Format is the length of the call is inconveniently long when I'm passing it into another function (like Msg), but that's easy to get around with a custom function to serve as an alias.

我想我们可以用MessageFormat。格式，因为它应该在可读性和性能方面都很好。

我使用了与Icaro在上面的回答中使用的相同的程序，并通过添加使用MessageFormat来解释性能数字的代码来增强它。

  public static void main(String[] args) {
    long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
      String s = "Hi " + i + "; Hi to you " + i * 2;
    }
    long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
    System.out.println("Concatenation = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

    start = System.currentTimeMillis();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
      String s = String.format("Hi %s; Hi to you %s", i, +i * 2);
    }
    end = System.currentTimeMillis();
    System.out.println("Format = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

    start = System.currentTimeMillis();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
      String s = MessageFormat.format("Hi %s; Hi to you %s", i, +i * 2);
    }
    end = System.currentTimeMillis();
    System.out.println("MessageFormat = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");
  }

串联= 69毫秒 格式= 1435毫秒 MessageFormat = 200毫秒

更新:

根据SonarLint报告，printf风格的格式字符串应该正确使用(squid:S3457)

Because printf-style format strings are interpreted at runtime, rather than validated by the compiler, they can contain errors that result in the wrong strings being created. This rule statically validates the correlation of printf-style format strings to their arguments when calling the format(...) methods of java.util.Formatter, java.lang.String, java.io.PrintStream, MessageFormat, and java.io.PrintWriter classes and the printf(...) methods of java.io.PrintStream or java.io.PrintWriter classes.

我用括号替换了printf样式，得到了一些有趣的结果，如下所示。

串联= 69毫秒格式= 1107毫秒 格式:括号= 416毫秒MessageFormat = 215 毫秒MessageFormat:括号= 2517毫秒

我的结论是: 如上所述，使用String。带尖括号的格式应该是一个很好的选择，以获得良好的可读性和性能。

错误的测试重复多次 不应该使用{}%s。

public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
  String s = "Hi " + i + "; Hi to you " + i * 2;
}
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Concatenation = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
  String s = String.format("Hi %s; Hi to you %s", i, +i * 2);
}
end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Wrong use of the message format  = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
  String s = String.format("Hi {0}; Hi to you {1}", i, +i * 2);
}
end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Good use of the message format = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

}

Concatenation = 88 millisecond
Wrong use of the message format  = 1075 millisecond 
Good use of the message format = 376 millisecond