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

.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。

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

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)。

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.

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