使用String和使用String之间有明显的区别吗?格式和字符串连接在Java?
我倾向于使用String。格式,但偶尔会滑倒和使用连接。我想知道哪个比哪个好。
在我看来,String。Format让你在“格式化”字符串时更强大;连接意味着您不必担心不小心输入了额外的%s或遗漏了一个。
字符串。格式也更短。
哪一个更容易读,取决于你的大脑如何工作。
使用String和使用String之间有明显的区别吗?格式和字符串连接在Java?
我倾向于使用String。格式,但偶尔会滑倒和使用连接。我想知道哪个比哪个好。
在我看来,String。Format让你在“格式化”字符串时更强大;连接意味着您不必担心不小心输入了额外的%s或遗漏了一个。
字符串。格式也更短。
哪一个更容易读,取决于你的大脑如何工作。
当前回答
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
其他回答
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。
.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。
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.
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
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