Spring中JDK动态代理和CGLIB动态代理的性能比较

最新推荐文章于 2025-04-19 20:28:14 发布

xiangbq

最新推荐文章于 2025-04-19 20:28:14 发布

阅读量6.3k

点赞数

分类专栏： Java

Java 专栏收录该内容

55 篇文章

订阅专栏

本文通过实验对比了Cglib与JDK动态代理在不同JDK版本下的性能表现，结果显示Cglib在JDK6下稍优于JDK动态代理，但在JDK7及以后版本中，JDK动态代理的性能显著提高并超越Cglib。

摘要生成于 C知道，由 DeepSeek-R1 满血版支持，前往体验 >

http://www.cnblogs.com/haiq/p/4304615.html

都说 Cglib 创建的动态代理的运行性能比 JDK 动态代理能高出大概 10 倍，今日抱着怀疑精神验证了一下，发现情况有所不同，遂贴出实验结果，以供参考和讨论。

代码很简单，首先，定义一个 Test 接口，和一个实现 TestImpl 。Test 接口仅定义一个方法 test，对传入的 int 参数加 1 后返回。代码如下：

package my.test;

public interface Test {
    
    public int test(int i);
    
}

package my.test;

public class TestImpl implements Test{
    public int test(int i) {
        return i+1;
    }
}

然后，定义了三种代理的实现：装饰者模式实现的代理(decorator)，JDK 动态代理(dynamic proxy) 和 Cglib 动态代理 (cglib proxy)。代码如下：

package my.test;

public class DecoratorTest implements Test{
    private Test target;
    
    public DecoratorTest(Test target) {
        this.target = target;
    }

    public int test(int i) {
        return target.test(i);
    }
}

package my.test;

import java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import java.lang.reflect.Proxy;

public class DynamicProxyTest implements InvocationHandler {
    private Test target;

    private DynamicProxyTest(Test target) {
        this.target = target;
    }

    public static Test newProxyInstance(Test target) {
        return (Test) Proxy
                .newProxyInstance(DynamicProxyTest.class.getClassLoader(),
                        new Class<?>[] { Test.class },
                        new DynamicProxyTest(target));

    }

    public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args)
            throws Throwable {
        return method.invoke(target, args);
    }
}

package my.test;

import java.lang.reflect.Method;

import net.sf.cglib.proxy.Enhancer;
import net.sf.cglib.proxy.MethodInterceptor;
import net.sf.cglib.proxy.MethodProxy;

public class CglibProxyTest implements MethodInterceptor {
    
    private CglibProxyTest() {
    }
    
    public static <T extends Test> Test newProxyInstance(Class<T> targetInstanceClazz){
        Enhancer enhancer = new Enhancer();
        enhancer.setSuperclass(targetInstanceClazz);
        enhancer.setCallback(new CglibProxyTest());
        return (Test) enhancer.create();
    }

    public Object intercept(Object obj, Method method, Object[] args,
            MethodProxy proxy) throws Throwable {
        return proxy.invokeSuper(obj, args);
    }

}

以 TestImpl 的调用耗时作为基准，对比通过其它三种代理进行调用的耗时。测试代码如下：

package my.test;

import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
import java.util.Map;

public class ProxyPerfTester {

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        //创建测试对象；
        Test nativeTest = new TestImpl();
        Test decorator = new DecoratorTest(nativeTest);
        Test dynamicProxy = DynamicProxyTest.newProxyInstance(nativeTest);
        Test cglibProxy = CglibProxyTest.newProxyInstance(TestImpl.class);

        //预热一下；
        int preRunCount = 10000;
        runWithoutMonitor(nativeTest, preRunCount);
        runWithoutMonitor(decorator, preRunCount);
        runWithoutMonitor(cglibProxy, preRunCount);
        runWithoutMonitor(dynamicProxy, preRunCount);
        
        //执行测试；
        Map<String, Test> tests = new LinkedHashMap<String, Test>();
        tests.put("Native   ", nativeTest);
        tests.put("Decorator", decorator);
        tests.put("Dynamic  ", dynamicProxy);
        tests.put("Cglib    ", cglibProxy);
        int repeatCount = 3;
        int runCount = 1000000;
        runTest(repeatCount, runCount, tests);
        runCount = 50000000;
        runTest(repeatCount, runCount, tests);
    }
    
    private static void runTest(int repeatCount, int runCount, Map<String, Test> tests){
        System.out.println(String.format("\n==================== run test : [repeatCount=%s] [runCount=%s] [java.version=%s] ====================", repeatCount, runCount, System.getProperty("java.version")));
        for (int i = 0; i < repeatCount; i++) {
            System.out.println(String.format("\n--------- test : [%s] ---------", (i+1)));
            for (String key : tests.keySet()) {
                runWithMonitor(tests.get(key), runCount, key);
            }
        }
    }
    
    private static void runWithoutMonitor(Test test, int runCount) {
        for (int i = 0; i < runCount; i++) {
            test.test(i);
        }
    }
    
    private static void runWithMonitor(Test test, int runCount, String tag) {
        long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
        for (int i = 0; i < runCount; i++) {
            test.test(i);
        }
        long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
        System.out.println("["+tag + "] Elapsed Time:" + (end-start) + "ms");
    }
}

测试用例分别在 jdk6、 jdk7、jdk8 下进行了测试，每次测试分别以 1,000,000 和 50,000,000 循环次数调用 test 方法，并重复3次。

jdk6 下的测试结果如下：

==================== run test : [repeatCount=3] [runCount=1000000] [java.version=1.6.0_45] ====================

--------- test : [1] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:2ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:12ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:31ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:31ms

--------- test : [2] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:7ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:7ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:31ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:27ms

--------- test : [3] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:7ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:6ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:23ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:29ms

==================== run test : [repeatCount=3] [runCount=50000000] [java.version=1.6.0_45] ====================

--------- test : [1] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:212ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:226ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:1054ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:830ms

--------- test : [2] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:184ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:222ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:1020ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:826ms

--------- test : [3] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:184ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:208ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:979ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:832ms

　　测试结果表明：jdk6 下，在运行次数较少的情况下，jdk动态代理与 cglib 差距不明显，甚至更快一些；而当调用次数增加之后， cglib 表现稍微更快一些，然而仅仅是“稍微”好一些，远没达到 10 倍差距。

jdk7 下的测试结果如下：

==================== run test : [repeatCount=3] [runCount=1000000] [java.version=1.7.0_60] ====================

--------- test : [1] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:2ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:12ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:19ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:26ms

--------- test : [2] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:3ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:5ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:17ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:20ms

--------- test : [3] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:4ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:4ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:13ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:27ms

==================== run test : [repeatCount=3] [runCount=50000000] [java.version=1.7.0_60] ====================

--------- test : [1] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:208ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:210ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:551ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:923ms

--------- test : [2] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:238ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:210ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:483ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:872ms

--------- test : [3] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:217ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:208ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:494ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:881ms

测试结果表明：jdk7 下，情况发生了逆转！在运行次数较少（1,000,000）的情况下，jdk动态代理比 cglib 快了差不多30%；而当调用次数增加之后(50,000,000)，动态代理比 cglib 快了接近1倍。

接下来再看看jdk8下的表现如何。

jdk8 下的测试结果如下：

==================== run test : [repeatCount=3] [runCount=1000000] [java.version=1.8.0_05] ====================

--------- test : [1] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:5ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:11ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:27ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:52ms

--------- test : [2] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:4ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:6ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:11ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:24ms

--------- test : [3] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:4ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:5ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:9ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:26ms

==================== run test : [repeatCount=3] [runCount=50000000] [java.version=1.8.0_05] ====================

--------- test : [1] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:194ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:211ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:538ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:965ms

--------- test : [2] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:194ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:214ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:503ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:969ms

--------- test : [3] ---------
[Native   ] Elapsed Time:190ms
[Decorator] Elapsed Time:209ms
[Dynamic  ] Elapsed Time:495ms
[Cglib    ] Elapsed Time:939ms

测试结果表明：jdk8 下，延续了 JDK7 下的惊天大逆转！不过还观察另外有一个细微的变化，从绝对值来看 cglib 在 jdk8 下的表现似乎比 jdk7 还要差一点点，尽管只是一点点，但经过反复多次的执行仍然是这个趋势（注：这个趋势的结论并不严谨，只是捎带一提，如需得出结论还需进行更多样的对比实验）。

结论：从 jdk6 到 jdk7、jdk8 ，动态代理的性能得到了显著的提升，而 cglib 的表现并未跟上，甚至可能会略微下降。传言的 cglib 比 jdk动态代理高出 10 倍的情况也许是出现在更低版本的 jdk 上吧。

以上测试用例虽然简单，但揭示了 jdk 版本升级可能会带来一些新技术改变，会使我们以前的经验失效。放在真实业务场景下时，还需要按照实际情况进行测试后才能得出特定于场景的结论。

总之，实践出真知，还要与时俱进地去检视更新一些以往经验。

注：上述实验中 cglib 的版本是 3.1 。

================================================================================

http://www.thinksaas.cn/group/topic/130731/

新项目开始之前领导让研究下公司原有的框架(基于struts1.2.9+spring2.0.6)，比较古老了。读service基类时发现竟然将request穿透到了service层(request为BaseService的实例变量)，这样service就变成了有状态Bean，使service层变成了非线程安全，导致用Spring容器管理service的时候不得不使用prototype的scope 我们知道，service由于要做事务的包装，需要创建代理对象，spring中使用JDK动态代理或者CGLIB动态代理来创建代理对象，据说JDK动态代理创建对象的时间快于CGLIB，但是性能比CGLIB差（接下来我会测试这个观点），所以我得出以下结论： 1.spring在bean的scope为prototype的情况下，因为是延迟实例化bean，所以最好使用JDK的API创建代理对象； 2.反之对于singleton对象，spring默认是容器启动时就初始化bean，最好使用CGLIB来创建对象把service配置成singleton我觉得性能方面显然要更好些，如果非要将request穿透到service层，是不是可以考虑用ThreadLocal？在测试之前，我们先确定spring是以什么方式使用JDK动态代理和CGLIB的，如图： JDK动态代理：CGLIB动态代理：接下来对测试下JDK动态代理和CGLIB动态代理的性能（CGLIB测试代码也和spring一样使用MethodInterceptor）先贴上测试代码

public interface CountService {
 int count();
}

public class CountServiceImpl implements CountService {
 private int count = 0;

 public int count() {
 return ++count;
}
}

import java.io.File;
import java.io.FileNotFoundException;
import java.io.FileOutputStream;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import java.lang.reflect.Proxy;
import java.text.DecimalFormat;

import net.sf.cglib.core.DefaultGeneratorStrategy;
import net.sf.cglib.proxy.Enhancer;
import net.sf.cglib.proxy.MethodInterceptor;
import net.sf.cglib.proxy.MethodProxy;

@SuppressWarnings("unused")
public class DynamicProxyPerformanceTest {

 public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
 CountService delegate = new CountServiceImpl();

 long time = System.currentTimeMillis();
 CountService jdkProxy = createJdkDynamicProxy(delegate);
 time = System.currentTimeMillis() - time;
 System.out.println("Create JDK Proxy:"+ time +"ms");

 time = System.currentTimeMillis();
 CountService cglibProxy = createCglibDynamicProxy(delegate);
 time = System.currentTimeMillis() - time;
 System.out.println("Create CGLIB Proxy:"+ time +"ms");

 for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
 test(jdkProxy,"Run JDK Proxy:");
 test(cglibProxy,"Run CGLIB Proxy:");
System.out.println("-------------------");
}
}

 private static void test(CountService service, String label) throws Exception {
 service.count(); // warm up
 int count = 10000000;
 long time = System.currentTimeMillis();
 for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
service.count();
}
 time = System.currentTimeMillis() - time;
 System.out.println(label + time +"ms,"+ new DecimalFormat().format(count * 1000 / time) +"t/s");
}

 private static CountService createJdkDynamicProxy(final CountService delegate) {
 CountService jdkProxy = (CountService) Proxy.newProxyInstance(ClassLoader.getSystemClassLoader(),
 new Class[] { CountService.class }, new JdkHandler(delegate));

 // 反汇编字节码用，测试的时候注释掉这段代码，不然影响测试结果
 // 下面一行代码参照java.lang.reflect.Proxy
// byte[] proxyClassFile =
// sun.misc.ProxyGenerator.generateProxyClass(
// jdkProxy.getClass().getName(), jdkProxy.getClass().getInterfaces());
// try {
// FileOutputStream fos =
// new FileOutputStream(new File(jdkProxy.getClass().getName() +".class"));
// fos.write(proxyClassFile, 0, proxyClassFile.length);
// } catch (FileNotFoundException e) {
// e.printStackTrace();
// } catch (IOException e) {
// e.printStackTrace();
// }
 return jdkProxy;
}

 private static class JdkHandler implements InvocationHandler {

 final Object delegate;

 JdkHandler(Object delegate) {
 this.delegate = delegate;
}

 public Object invoke(Object object, Method method, Object[] objects) throws Throwable {
 return method.invoke(delegate, objects);
}
}

 private static CountService createCglibDynamicProxy(final CountService delegate) throws Exception {
 Enhancer enhancer = new Enhancer();
enhancer.setSuperclass(CountServiceImpl.class);
 enhancer.setCallback(new MethodInterceptor() {
@Override
 public Object intercept(Object obj, Method method, Object[] args, MethodProxy proxy) throws Throwable {
 return proxy.invokeSuper(obj, args);
}
});
 CountServiceImpl cglibProxy = (CountServiceImpl) enhancer.create();
 // 反汇编字节码用，测试的时候注释掉这段代码，不然影响测试结果
 // 下面一行代码参照net.sf.cglib.core.AbstractClassGenerator类中byte[] b = strategy.generate(this);
// byte[] proxyClassFile = new DefaultGeneratorStrategy().generate(enhancer);
// try {
// FileOutputStream fos =
// new FileOutputStream(new File(cglibProxy.getClass().getName() +".class"));
// fos.write(proxyClassFile, 0, proxyClassFile.length);
// } catch (FileNotFoundException e) {
// e.printStackTrace();
// } catch (IOException e) {
// e.printStackTrace();
// }
 return cglibProxy;
}
}

数据为执行三次，每次调用一千万次代理方法的结果测试环境1： JDK：fastdebug1.6 CGLIB：和spring2.0.6 使用同样的cglib-nodep-2.1_3.jar CPU：P8400 2.53GHz 2.53GHz 测试结果1：

Create JDK Proxy: 13 ms
Create CGLIB Proxy: 201 ms
Run JDK Proxy: 1571 ms, 897,559 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 824 ms, 1,711,244 t/s
-------------------
Run JDK Proxy: 1519 ms, 928,285 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 576 ms, 2,448,030 t/s
-------------------
Run JDK Proxy: 1546 ms, 912,073 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 590 ms, 2,389,941 t/s
-------------------

CGLIB创建代理对象速度大概比JDK Proxy慢15倍，执行速度是JDK Proxy的2倍左右测试环境2： JDK：fastdebug1.7 CGLIB：和spring2.0.6 使用同样的cglib-nodep-2.1_3.jar CPU：P8400 2.53GHz 2.53GHz 测试结果2：

Create JDK Proxy: 14 ms
Create CGLIB Proxy: 204 ms
Run JDK Proxy: 1608 ms, 876,906 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 529 ms, 2,665,530 t/s
-------------------
Run JDK Proxy: 1591 ms, 886,276 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 405 ms, 3,481,642 t/s
-------------------
Run JDK Proxy: 1624 ms, 868,266 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 405 ms, 3,481,642 t/s
-------------------

CGLIB创建代理对象速度大概比JDK Proxy慢15倍，执行速度是JDK Proxy的4倍左右测试环境3： JDK：jdk1.6.0_21 CGLIB：和spring2.0.6 使用同样的cglib-nodep-2.1_3.jar CPU：P8400 2.53GHz 2.53GHz 测试结果3：

Create JDK Proxy: 8 ms
Create CGLIB Proxy: 99 ms
Run JDK Proxy: 911 ms, 1,547,821 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 435 ms, 3,241,529 t/s
-------------------
Run JDK Proxy: 870 ms, 1,620,764 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 399 ms, 3,533,998 t/s
-------------------
Run JDK Proxy: 894 ms, 1,577,254 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 404 ms, 3,490,260 t/s
-------------------

CGLIB创建代理对象速度大概比JDK Proxy慢10倍以上，执行速度是JDK Proxy的2倍左右测试环境4： JDK：jdk1.7.0_02 CGLIB：和spring2.0.6 使用同样的cglib-nodep-2.1_3.jar CPU：P8400 2.53GHz 2.53GHz 测试结果4：

Create JDK Proxy: 43 ms
Create CGLIB Proxy: 129 ms
Run JDK Proxy: 940 ms, 1,500,069 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 299 ms, 4,715,937 t/s
-------------------
Run JDK Proxy: 921 ms, 1,531,015 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 269 ms, 5,241,878 t/s
-------------------
Run JDK Proxy: 932 ms, 1,512,945 t/s
Run CGLIB Proxy: 265 ms, 5,321,001 t/s
-------------------

CGLIB创建代理对象速度大概比JDK Proxy慢3倍，执行速度是JDK Proxy的3倍以上字节码比较：把测试代码中被注释的部分打开，生成class文件后执行javap -c 类名 JDK动态代理生成的字节码：

 public final int count() throws ;
Code:
 0: aload_0 
 1: getfield #16 // Field java/lang/reflect/Proxy.h:Ljava/lang/reflect/InvocationHandler;
 4: aload_0 
 5: getstatic #50 // Field m3:Ljava/lang/reflect/Method;
 8: aconst_null 
 9: invokeinterface #28, 4 // InterfaceMethod java/lang/reflect/InvocationHandler.invoke:(Ljava/lang/Object;Ljava/lang/reflect/Method;[Ljava/lang/Object;)Ljava/lang/Object;
 14: checkcast #52 // class java/lang/Integer
 17: invokevirtual #55 // Method java/lang/Integer.intValue:()I
 20: ireturn 
 21: athrow 
 22: astore_1 
 23: new #42 // class java/lang/reflect/UndeclaredThrowableException
 26: dup 
 27: aload_1 
 28: invokespecial #45 // Method java/lang/reflect/UndeclaredThrowableException."<init>":(Ljava/lang/Throwable;)V
 31: athrow 
 Exception table:
 from to target type
 0 21 21 Class java/lang/Error
 0 21 21 Class java/lang/RuntimeException
 0 21 22 Class java/lang/Throwable

CGLIB生成的字节码：

 public final int count();
Code:
 0: aload_0 
 1: getfield #37 // Field CGLIB$CALLBACK_0:Lnet/sf/cglib/proxy/MethodInterceptor;
 4: dup 
 5: ifnonnull 17
 8: pop 
 9: aload_0 
 10: invokestatic #41 // Method CGLIB$BIND_CALLBACKS:(Ljava/lang/Object;)V
 13: aload_0 
 14: getfield #37 // Field CGLIB$CALLBACK_0:Lnet/sf/cglib/proxy/MethodInterceptor;
 17: dup 
 18: ifnull 52
 21: aload_0 
 22: getstatic #43 // Field CGLIB$count$0$Method:Ljava/lang/reflect/Method;
 25: getstatic #45 // Field CGLIB$emptyArgs:[Ljava/lang/Object;
 28: getstatic #47 // Field CGLIB$count$0$Proxy:Lnet/sf/cglib/proxy/MethodProxy;
 31: invokeinterface #53, 5 // InterfaceMethod net/sf/cglib/proxy/MethodInterceptor.intercept:(Ljava/lang/Object;Ljava/lang/reflect/Method;[Ljava/lang/Object;Lnet/sf/cglib/proxy/MethodProxy;)Ljava/lang/Object;
 36: dup 
 37: ifnonnull 45
 40: pop 
 41: iconst_0 
 42: goto 51
 45: checkcast #55 // class java/lang/Number
 48: invokevirtual #58 // Method java/lang/Number.intValue:()I
 51: ireturn 
 52: aload_0 
 53: invokespecial #35 // Method CountServiceImpl.count:()I
 56: ireturn