String+，StringBuilder，String.format运行效率比较

最新推荐文章于 2024-09-16 19:01:17 发布

imi00

最新推荐文章于 2024-09-16 19:01:17 发布

阅读量5.1k

点赞数 1

转自：https://blog.csdn.net/xianymo/article/details/40583197

实现String字符串相加的方法有很多，常见的有直接相加，StringBuilder.append和String.format，这三者的运行效率是有差异的，String是final类型的，每次相加都会new一个

新的String对象，如果这种操作很多的话，很占用很大的内存。而StringBuilder.append方法是在原对象上进行操作，如果长度不够就自行扩展。

测试代码1：

String success_code = "0";
byte splite = 0x01;
private void method1(){
String resultMsg = "";
long time1 = System.nanoTime();
String.format( "ErrorCode=%s%cErrorMsg=心跳包接收成功%c", success_code, splite, splite);
long time2 = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println( "StringFormat："+(time2-time1)+ "ns");
long time3 = System.nanoTime();
resultMsg = "ErrorCode="+success_code+splite+ "ErrorMsg=心跳包接收成功"+splite;
long time4 = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println( "String add："+(time4-time3)+ "ns");
long time5 = System.nanoTime();
sb.append( "ErrorCode=").append(success_code).append(splite).append( "ErrorMsg=心跳包接收成功").append(splite);
long time6 = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println( "StringBuilder add："+(time6-time5)+ "ns");
System.out.println( "-------------------------------------------------");
}
@Test
public void test1(){
for( int i= 0; i< 1000; i++){
method1();
}
}

运行结果：

从上述结果可知，StringBuilder与String直接相加的执行效率都比String.format高，而StringBuilder的执行效率要比String直接相加要高点。下面针对String，StringBuilder再

做一组测试。

测试代码2：

public void method2(int num){
String text = "";
long beginTime = System.nanoTime();
for( int i = 0; i < num; i++){
text += i;
}
long endTime = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println( "String直接相加"+num+ "次耗费时间：" + (endTime - beginTime)+ "ns");
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder( "");
beginTime = System.nanoTime();
for( int i = 0; i < num; i++){
builder.append(i);
}
endTime = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println( "StringBuilder相加"+num+ "次耗费时间:" + (endTime - beginTime)+ "ns");
System.out.println( "---------------------------------------------------");
}
@Test
public void test2(){
method2( 10);
method2( 100);
method2( 10000);
method2( 100000);
}

运行结果：

从测试结果可分析出，StringBuilder的效率是比String高。

再来看一个测试，代码和上面的一样，只是SringBuilder加上个toString

测试代码：

String success_code = "0";
byte splite = 0x01;
private void method1(){
String resultMsg = "";
long time1 = System.nanoTime();
resultMsg = String.format( "ErrorCode=%s%cErrorMsg=心跳包接收成功%c", success_code, splite, splite);
long time2 = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println( "StringFormat："+(time2-time1)+ "ns");
long time3 = System.nanoTime();
resultMsg = "ErrorCode="+success_code+splite+ "ErrorMsg=心跳包接收成功"+splite;
long time4 = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println( "String add："+(time4-time3)+ "ns");
long time5 = System.nanoTime();
resultMsg = sb.append( "ErrorCode=").append(success_code).append(splite).append( "ErrorMsg=心跳包接收成功").append(splite).toString();
long time6 = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println( "StringBuilder add："+(time6-time5)+ "ns");
System.out.println( "-------------------------------------------------");
}