[英]Why is “or” slower than “and” in Java?
今天,我在java中遇到了相當驚人的行為, or
慢於and
!
我甚至做了一個你可以在下面看到的測試用例。現在我想知道為什么會這樣? 我做錯了什么或者只是在我的電腦上發生了什么? 我看不出有任何理由, or
應慢and
特意用這個顯著差異。 我想用其他一些語言測試這種現象,你對這個一般有什么想法嗎?
public class TestClass {
public static void main(String[] args) {
long[] or = new long[10];
long[] and = new long[10];
long lStartTime, lEndTime, difference = 0;
for (int idx = 0; idx < 10; idx++) {
lStartTime = System.nanoTime();
for (int i= 0; i < 1000000000; i++) {
int j = i | i+1 ;
}
lEndTime = System.nanoTime();
difference = lEndTime - lStartTime;
System.out.println("Elapsed milliseconds: " + difference/1000000);
or[idx] = difference;
lStartTime = System.nanoTime();
for (int i= 0; i < 1000000000; i++) {
int j = i & i+1 ;
}
lEndTime = System.nanoTime();
difference = lEndTime - lStartTime;
System.out.println("Elapsed milliseconds: " + difference/1000000);
and[idx] = difference;
System.out.println("------------------------------------" );
}
long tmp = 0;
for (long l : or) {
tmp += l;
}
tmp /= 10;
System.out.println("Elapsed milliseconds for or: " + tmp/1000000);
tmp = 0;
for (long l : and) {
tmp += l;
}
tmp /= 10;
System.out.println("Elapsed milliseconds for and: " + tmp/1000000);
}
}
結果:
Elapsed milliseconds: 1600 Elapsed milliseconds: 1332 ------------------------------------ Elapsed milliseconds: 1609 Elapsed milliseconds: 1335 ------------------------------------ Elapsed milliseconds: 1609 Elapsed milliseconds: 1335 ------------------------------------ Elapsed milliseconds: 1542 Elapsed milliseconds: 1314 ------------------------------------ Elapsed milliseconds: 1705 Elapsed milliseconds: 1324 ------------------------------------ Elapsed milliseconds: 1559 Elapsed milliseconds: 1315 ------------------------------------ Elapsed milliseconds: 1526 Elapsed milliseconds: 1314 ------------------------------------ Elapsed milliseconds: 1568 Elapsed milliseconds: 1340 ------------------------------------ Elapsed milliseconds: 1551 Elapsed milliseconds: 1318 ------------------------------------ Elapsed milliseconds: 1574 Elapsed milliseconds: 1321 ------------------------------------ Elapsed milliseconds for or: 1584 Elapsed milliseconds for and: 1325
Bit-Wise OR 並不比Bit-Wise AND慢!
在代碼中的時間測量片段之間切換,您將得到相反的結果:
for (int idx = 0; idx < 10; idx++) {
lStartTime = System.nanoTime();
for (int i= 0; i < 1000000000; i++) {
int j = i & i+1 ;
}
lEndTime = System.nanoTime();
difference = lEndTime - lStartTime;
System.out.println("Elapsed milliseconds: " + difference/1000000);
and[idx] = difference;
lStartTime = System.nanoTime();
for (int i= 0; i < 1000000000; i++) {
int j = i | i+1 ;
}
lEndTime = System.nanoTime();
difference = lEndTime - lStartTime;
System.out.println("Elapsed milliseconds: " + difference/1000000);
or[idx] = difference;
System.out.println("------------------------------------");
}
我傾向於猜測JVM在第二個片段中應用了某種運行時優化。
編寫正確的微基准測試非常耗時且容易出錯。 我建議使用像Caliper這樣的現有庫。
這是在Caliper中完成的相應基准測試(編譯時需要的最新git版本):
public class BitwiseOperatorPerformance {
@Benchmark
public int timeOr(int reps){
int dummy = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < reps; i++) {
dummy |= i+1;
}
return dummy;
}
@Benchmark
public int timeAnd(int reps){
int dummy = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < reps; i++) {
dummy &= i+1;
}
return dummy;
}
}
這是測試結果: 鏈接
結果表明, AND和OR運算符的性能完全相同 。
聲明:本站的技術帖子網頁,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0協議,如果您需要轉載,請注明本站網址或者原文地址。任何問題請咨詢:yoyou2525@163.com.