Java中final方法比非final性能更好?

最新推荐文章于 2021-02-16 03:43:28 发布

K'illCode

最新推荐文章于 2021-02-16 03:43:28 发布

阅读量559

点赞数

分类专栏： java

本文链接：https://blog.csdn.net/Dome_/article/details/86073174

版权

java 专栏收录该内容

351 篇文章 3 订阅

订阅专栏

无继承

有 static 修饰

static final

// 生成随机数字和字母,
public static final String getStringRandomFinal(int length) {
String val = "";
Random random = new Random();
// 参数length，表示生成几位随机数
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
String charOrNum = random.nextInt(2) % 2 == 0 ? "char" : "num";
// 输出字母还是数字
if ("char".equalsIgnoreCase(charOrNum)) {
// 输出是大写字母还是小写字母
// int temp = random.nextInt(2) % 2 == 0 ? 65 : 97;
val += (char) (random.nextInt(26) + 97);
} else if ("num".equalsIgnoreCase(charOrNum)) {
val += String.valueOf(random.nextInt(10));
}
}
return val;
}

static 非 final

// 生成随机数字和字母,
public static String getStringRandom(int length) {
String val = "";
Random random = new Random();
// 参数length，表示生成几位随机数
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
String charOrNum = random.nextInt(2) % 2 == 0 ? "char" : "num";
// 输出字母还是数字
if ("char".equalsIgnoreCase(charOrNum)) {
// 输出是大写字母还是小写字母
// int temp = random.nextInt(2) % 2 == 0 ? 65 : 97;
val += (char) (random.nextInt(26) + 97);
} else if ("num".equalsIgnoreCase(charOrNum)) {
val += String.valueOf(random.nextInt(10));
}
}
return val;
}

结果

这里使用了 OpenJDK 的 JMH 基准测试工具来测试的，结果如下:

# JMH 1.4.1 (released 903 days ago, please consider updating!)
# VM invoker: /srv/jdk1.8.0_92/jre/bin/java
# VM options: <none>
# Warmup: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Measurement: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Timeout: 10 min per iteration
# Threads: 1 thread, will synchronize iterations
# Benchmark mode: Throughput, ops/time
# Benchmark: org.agoncal.sample.jmh.Main.benchmark
中间忽略了预热及测试过程，这里只显示结果
Result: 206924.113 ±(99.9%) 7746.446 ops/s [Average]
Statistics: (min, avg, max) = (132107.466, 206924.113, 267265.397), stdev = 32798.937
Confidence interval (99.9%): [199177.667, 214670.559]
# JMH 1.4.1 (released 903 days ago, please consider updating!)
# VM invoker: /srv/jdk1.8.0_92/jre/bin/java
# VM options: <none>
# Warmup: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Measurement: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Timeout: 10 min per iteration
# Threads: 1 thread, will synchronize iterations
# Benchmark mode: Throughput, ops/time
# Benchmark: org.agoncal.sample.jmh.Main.benchmarkFinal
中间忽略了预热及测试过程，这里只显示结果
Result: 210111.568 ±(99.9%) 8486.176 ops/s [Average]
Statistics: (min, avg, max) = (133813.368, 210111.568, 267525.228), stdev = 35931.001
Confidence interval (99.9%): [201625.392, 218597.744]
# Run complete. Total time: 00:13:54
Benchmark Mode Samples Score Error Units
o.a.s.j.Main.benchmark thrpt 200 206924.113 ± 7746.446 ops/s
o.a.s.j.Main.benchmarkFinal thrpt 200 210111.568 ± 8486.176 ops/s

总结：你说final的性能比非final有没有提升呢？可以说有，但几乎可以忽略不计。如果单纯地追求性能，而将所有的方法修改为 final 的话，我认为这样子是不可取的。

而且这性能的差别，远远也没有网上有些人说的提升 50% 这么恐怖（有可能他们使用的是10年前的JVM来测试的吧^_^，比如《35+ 个 Java 代码性能优化总结》这篇文章。雷总：不服？咱们来跑个分！）

分析

字节码级别的差别

StringKit.java StringKitFinal.java

它们在字节码上的差别:

[18:52:08] emacsist:target $ diff /tmp/stringkit.log /tmp/stringkit-final.log
1,5c1,5
< Classfile /Users/emacsist/Documents/idea/logging/target/classes/org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit.class
< Last modified 2017-6-15; size 1098 bytes
< MD5 checksum fe1ccdde26107e4037afc54c780f2c95
< Compiled from "StringKit.java"
< public class org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKit
---
> Classfile /Users/emacsist/Documents/idea/logging/target/classes/org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal.class
> Last modified 2017-6-15; size 1118 bytes
> MD5 checksum 410f8bf0eb723b794e4754c6eb8b9829
> Compiled from "StringKitFinal.java"
> public class org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKitFinal
24c24
< #15 = Class #52 // org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit
---
> #15 = Class #52 // org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal
32,33c32,33
< #23 = Utf8 Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit;
< #24 = Utf8 getStringRandom
---
> #23 = Utf8 Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal;
> #24 = Utf8 getStringRandomFinal
47c47
< #38 = Utf8 StringKit.java
---
> #38 = Utf8 StringKitFinal.java
61c61
< #52 = Utf8 org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit
---
> #52 = Utf8 org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal
75c75
< public org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKit();
---
> public org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKitFinal();
87c87
< 0 5 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit;
---
> 0 5 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal;
89c89
< public static java.lang.String getStringRandom(int);
---
> public static final java.lang.String getStringRandomFinal(int);
91c91
< flags: ACC_PUBLIC, ACC_STATIC
---
> flags: ACC_PUBLIC, ACC_STATIC, ACC_FINAL
187c187
< SourceFile: "StringKit.java"
---
> SourceFile: "StringKitFinal.java"

可以看到除了方法名和方法修饰符不同之外，其他的没有什么区别了。

在调用者上面的字节码差别

public void benchmark();
descriptor: ()V
flags: ACC_PUBLIC
Code:
stack=1, locals=1, args_size=1
0: bipush 32
2: invokestatic #2 // Method org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit.getStringRandom:(I)Ljava/lang/String;
5: pop
6: return
LineNumberTable:
line 21: 0
line 22: 6
LocalVariableTable:
Start Length Slot Name Signature
0 7 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/Main;
RuntimeVisibleAnnotations:
0: #26()
public void benchmarkFinal();
descriptor: ()V
flags: ACC_PUBLIC
Code:
stack=1, locals=1, args_size=1
0: bipush 32
2: invokestatic #3 // Method org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal.getStringRandomFinal:(I)Ljava/lang/String;
5: pop
6: return
LineNumberTable:
line 26: 0
line 27: 6
LocalVariableTable:
Start Length Slot Name Signature
0 7 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/Main;
RuntimeVisibleAnnotations:
0: #26()

可以看到，它们在调用者上面的字节码也没有什么区别，只是方法名不一样之外。

对于 JVM 来说，它是只认字节码的，既然字节码除了方法名和修饰符一样，其他都一样，那就可以大概推测它们的性能几乎可以忽略不计了。因为调用 static final 和 static 非 final 的JVM指令是一样。

无 static 修饰

方法体是一样的，只是将它们删除了 static 的修饰。

结果

# JMH version: 1.19
# VM version: JDK 1.8.0_92, VM 25.92-b14
# VM invoker: /srv/jdk1.8.0_92/jre/bin/java
# VM options: <none>
# Warmup: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Measurement: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Timeout: 10 min per iteration
# Threads: 1 thread, will synchronize iterations
# Benchmark mode: Throughput, ops/time
# Benchmark: org.agoncal.sample.jmh.Main.benchmark
中间忽略了预热及测试过程，这里只显示结果
Result "org.agoncal.sample.jmh.Main.benchmark":
201306.770 ±(99.9%) 8184.423 ops/s [Average]
(min, avg, max) = (131889.934, 201306.770, 259928.172), stdev = 34653.361
CI (99.9%): [193122.347, 209491.193] (assumes normal distribution)
# JMH version: 1.19
# VM version: JDK 1.8.0_92, VM 25.92-b14
# VM invoker: /srv/jdk1.8.0_92/jre/bin/java
# VM options: <none>
# Warmup: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Measurement: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Timeout: 10 min per iteration
# Threads: 1 thread, will synchronize iterations
# Benchmark mode: Throughput, ops/time
# Benchmark: org.agoncal.sample.jmh.Main.benchmarkFinal
中间忽略了预热及测试过程，这里只显示结果
Result "org.agoncal.sample.jmh.Main.benchmarkFinal":
196871.022 ±(99.9%) 8595.719 ops/s [Average]
(min, avg, max) = (131182.268, 196871.022, 265522.769), stdev = 36394.814
CI (99.9%): [188275.302, 205466.741] (assumes normal distribution)
# Run complete. Total time: 00:13:35
Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units
Main.benchmark thrpt 200 201306.770 ± 8184.423 ops/s
Main.benchmarkFinal thrpt 200 196871.022 ± 8595.719 ops/s

分析

字节码级别的差别

[19:20:17] emacsist:target $ diff /tmp/stringkit.log /tmp/stringkit-final.log
1,5c1,5
< Classfile /Users/emacsist/Documents/idea/logging/target/classes/org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit.class
< Last modified 2017-6-15; size 1110 bytes
< MD5 checksum f61144e86f7c17dc5d5f2b2d35fac36d
< Compiled from "StringKit.java"
< public class org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKit
---
> Classfile /Users/emacsist/Documents/idea/logging/target/classes/org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal.class
> Last modified 2017-6-15; size 1130 bytes
> MD5 checksum 15ce17ee17fdb5f4721f0921977b1e69
> Compiled from "StringKitFinal.java"
> public class org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKitFinal
24c24
< #15 = Class #52 // org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit
---
> #15 = Class #52 // org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal
32,33c32,33
< #23 = Utf8 Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit;
< #24 = Utf8 getStringRandom
---
> #23 = Utf8 Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal;
> #24 = Utf8 getStringRandomFinal
47c47
< #38 = Utf8 StringKit.java
---
> #38 = Utf8 StringKitFinal.java
61c61
< #52 = Utf8 org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit
---
> #52 = Utf8 org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal
75c75
< public org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKit();
---
> public org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKitFinal();
87c87
< 0 5 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit;
---
> 0 5 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal;
89c89
< public java.lang.String getStringRandom(int);
---
> public final java.lang.String getStringRandomFinal(int);
91c91
< flags: ACC_PUBLIC
---
> flags: ACC_PUBLIC, ACC_FINAL
169c169
< 0 125 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit;
---
> 0 125 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal;
188c188
< SourceFile: "StringKit.java"
---
> SourceFile: "StringKitFinal.java"

可以看到，字节码上除了名字和 final 修饰符差别外，其余的是一样的。

在调用者上面的字节码差别

public void benchmark();
descriptor: ()V
flags: ACC_PUBLIC
Code:
stack=2, locals=1, args_size=1
0: new #2 // class org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit
3: dup
4: invokespecial #3 // Method org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit."<init>":()V
7: bipush 32
9: invokevirtual #4 // Method org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit.getStringRandom:(I)Ljava/lang/String;
12: pop
13: return
LineNumberTable:
line 21: 0
line 22: 13
LocalVariableTable:
Start Length Slot Name Signature
0 14 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/Main;
RuntimeVisibleAnnotations:
0: #30()
public void benchmarkFinal();
descriptor: ()V
flags: ACC_PUBLIC
Code:
stack=2, locals=1, args_size=1
0: new #5 // class org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal
3: dup
4: invokespecial #6 // Method org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal."<init>":()V
7: bipush 32
9: invokevirtual #7 // Method org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal.getStringRandomFinal:(I)Ljava/lang/String;
12: pop
13: return
LineNumberTable:
line 26: 0
line 27: 13
LocalVariableTable:
Start Length Slot Name Signature
0 14 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/Main;
RuntimeVisibleAnnotations:
0: #30()

可以看到，它们除了名字不同之外，其他的JVM指令都是一样的。

总结

对于是否有 final 修饰的方法，对性能的影响可以忽略不计。因为它们生成的字节码除了 flags 标志位是否有 final 修饰不同之外，其他所有的JVM指令，都是一样的（对于方法本身，以及调用者本身的字节码都一样）。对于JVM来说，它执行的就是字节码，如果字节码都一样的话，那对于JVM来说，它就是同一样东西的了。

有继承

无 final 修饰

package org.agoncal.sample.jmh;
import java.util.Random;
/**
* Created by emacsist on 2017/6/15.
*/
public abstract class StringKitAbs {
// 生成随机数字和字母,
public String getStringRandom(int length) {
String val = "";
Random random = new Random();
// 参数length，表示生成几位随机数
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
String charOrNum = random.nextInt(2) % 2 == 0 ? "char" : "num";
// 输出字母还是数字
if ("char".equalsIgnoreCase(charOrNum)) {
// 输出是大写字母还是小写字母
// int temp = random.nextInt(2) % 2 == 0 ? 65 : 97;
val += (char) (random.nextInt(26) + 97);
} else if ("num".equalsIgnoreCase(charOrNum)) {
val += String.valueOf(random.nextInt(10));
}
}
return val;
}
}

有 final 修饰

package org.agoncal.sample.jmh;
import java.util.Random;
/**
* Created by emacsist on 2017/6/15.
*/
public abstract class StringKitAbsFinal {
// 生成随机数字和字母,
public final String getStringRandomFinal(int length) {
String val = "";
Random random = new Random();
// 参数length，表示生成几位随机数
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
String charOrNum = random.nextInt(2) % 2 == 0 ? "char" : "num";
// 输出字母还是数字
if ("char".equalsIgnoreCase(charOrNum)) {
// 输出是大写字母还是小写字母
// int temp = random.nextInt(2) % 2 == 0 ? 65 : 97;
val += (char) (random.nextInt(26) + 97);
} else if ("num".equalsIgnoreCase(charOrNum)) {
val += String.valueOf(random.nextInt(10));
}
}
return val;
}
}

测试代码

写一个类来继承上面的抽象类，以此来测试在继承中 final 有否对多态中的影响

package org.agoncal.sample.jmh;
/**
* Created by emacsist on 2017/6/15.
*/
public class StringKitFinal extends StringKitAbsFinal {
}

package org.agoncal.sample.jmh;
/**
* Created by emacsist on 2017/6/15.
*/
public class StringKit extends StringKitAbs {
}

然后在基准测试中:

@Benchmark
public void benchmark() {
new StringKit().getStringRandom(32);
}
@Benchmark
public void benchmarkFinal() {
new StringKitFinal().getStringRandomFinal(32);
}

测试结果

非 final 结果

# JMH version: 1.19
# VM version: JDK 1.8.0_92, VM 25.92-b14
# VM invoker: /srv/jdk1.8.0_92/jre/bin/java
# VM options: <none>
# Warmup: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Measurement: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Timeout: 10 min per iteration
# Threads: 1 thread, will synchronize iterations
# Benchmark mode: Throughput, ops/time
# Benchmark: org.agoncal.sample.jmh.Main.benchmark
中间忽略了预热及测试过程
Result "org.agoncal.sample.jmh.Main.benchmark":
213462.677 ±(99.9%) 8670.164 ops/s [Average]
(min, avg, max) = (135751.428, 213462.677, 264182.887), stdev = 36710.017
CI (99.9%): [204792.513, 222132.841] (assumes normal distribution)

有 final 结果

# JMH version: 1.19
# VM version: JDK 1.8.0_92, VM 25.92-b14
# VM invoker: /srv/jdk1.8.0_92/jre/bin/java
# VM options: <none>
# Warmup: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Measurement: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Timeout: 10 min per iteration
# Threads: 1 thread, will synchronize iterations
# Benchmark mode: Throughput, ops/time
# Benchmark: org.agoncal.sample.jmh.Main.benchmarkFinal
中间忽略了预热及测试过程
Result "org.agoncal.sample.jmh.Main.benchmarkFinal":
213684.585 ±(99.9%) 8571.512 ops/s [Average]
(min, avg, max) = (133472.162, 213684.585, 267742.236), stdev = 36292.318
CI (99.9%): [205113.073, 222256.097] (assumes normal distribution)

总对比

# Run complete. Total time: 00:13:35
Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units
Main.benchmark thrpt 200 213462.677 ± 8670.164 ops/s
Main.benchmarkFinal thrpt 200 213684.585 ± 8571.512 ops/s

它们字节码的区别

[12:12:19] emacsist:classes $ diff /tmp/StringKit.log /tmp/StringKitFinal.log
1,5c1,5
< Classfile /Users/emacsist/Documents/idea/logging/target/classes/org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit.class
< Last modified 2017-6-16; size 317 bytes
< MD5 checksum 7f9b024adc7f39345215e3e8490cafe4
< Compiled from "StringKit.java"
< public class org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKit extends org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKitAbs
---
> Classfile /Users/emacsist/Documents/idea/logging/target/classes/org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal.class
> Last modified 2017-6-16; size 337 bytes
> MD5 checksum f54eadc79a90675d97e95f766ef88a87
> Compiled from "StringKitFinal.java"
> public class org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKitFinal extends org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKitAbsFinal
10,12c10,12
< #1 = Methodref #3.#13 // org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitAbs."<init>":()V
< #2 = Class #14 // org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit
< #3 = Class #15 // org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitAbs
---
> #1 = Methodref #3.#13 // org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitAbsFinal."<init>":()V
> #2 = Class #14 // org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal
> #3 = Class #15 // org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitAbsFinal
19c19
< #10 = Utf8 Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit;
---
> #10 = Utf8 Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal;
21c21
< #12 = Utf8 StringKit.java
---
> #12 = Utf8 StringKitFinal.java
23,24c23,24
< #14 = Utf8 org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit
< #15 = Utf8 org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitAbs
---
> #14 = Utf8 org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal
> #15 = Utf8 org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitAbsFinal
26c26
< public org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKit();
---
> public org.agoncal.sample.jmh.StringKitFinal();
32c32
< 1: invokespecial #1 // Method org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitAbs."<init>":()V
---
> 1: invokespecial #1 // Method org/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitAbsFinal."<init>":()V
38c38
< 0 5 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKit;
---
> 0 5 0 this Lorg/agoncal/sample/jmh/StringKitFinal;
40c40
< SourceFile: "StringKit.java"
---
> SourceFile: "StringKitFinal.java"

可以看到，除了它们的方法签名和方法名字不同之外其他的都是一样的，包括JVM调用指令也完全是一样的。

结论

可以看到它们几乎是一样的。

总结

基于上面的基准测试结论，我认为滥用或刻意为了所谓的提升性能，而去为每一个方法尽可能添加 final 的关键字是不可取的。使用 final ，更多的应该是根据Java对 final 的语义来定义，而不是只想着为了提升性能（而且这影响可以忽略不计）而刻意用 final.

使用 final 的情况:

final 变量: 表示只读（只初始化一次，但可多次读取） final 方法：表示子类不可以重写。（网上认为 final 比非 final 快，就是认为它是在编译的时候已经静态绑定了，不需要在运行时再动态绑定。这个可能以前的JVM上是正确的，但在现代的JVM上，这个可以认为没什么影响，至少我在基准测试里是这样子） final 类：它们不能被继承，而且final类的方法，默认也是 final 的。

关于这个 final 的性能问题，我也Google了下，发现 stackoverflow 上，也有类似的问题：

参考资料

https://www.javazhiyin.com/go?url=https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4279420/does-use-of-final-keyword-in-java-improve-the-performance

K'illCode

关注

0
点赞
踩
0

收藏

觉得还不错? 一键收藏
0
评论
Java中final方法比非final性能更好?

无继承有 static 修饰static final // 生成随机数字和字母, public static final String getStringRandomFinal(int length) { String val = ""; Random random = new Random(); ...
复制链接

扫一扫

专栏目录