I was curious about performance of creation of java8 lambda instances against the same anonymous class. (Measurement performed on win32 java build 1.8.0-ea-b106). I've created very simple example and measured if java propose some optimization of new
operator while create lambda expression:
static final int MEASURES = 1000000;
static interface ICallback{
void payload(int[] a);
}
/**
* force creation of anonymous class many times
*/
static void measureAnonymousClass(){
final int arr[] = {0};
for(int i = 0; i < MEASURES; ++i){
ICallback clb = new ICallback() {
@Override
public void payload(int[] a) {
a[0]++;
}
};
clb.payload(arr);
}
}
/**
* force creation of lambda many times
*/
static void measureLambda(){
final int arr[] = {0};
for(int i = 0; i < MEASURES; ++i){
ICallback clb = (a2) -> {
a2[0]++;
};
clb.payload(arr);
}
}
(Full code can be taken there: http://codepad.org/Iw0mkXhD) The result is rather predictable - lambda wins 2 times.
But really little shift to make closure shows very bad time for lambda. Anonymous class wins 10 times! So now anonymous class looks like:
ICallback clb = new ICallback() {
@Override
public void payload() {
arr[0]++;
}
};
And lambda does as follow:
ICallback clb = () -> {
arr[0]++;
};
(Full code can be taken there: http://codepad.org/XYd9Umty ) Can anybody explain me why exists so big (bad) difference in handling of closure?
Lambda expression can be used where a class implements a functional interface to reduce the complexity of the code. An inner anonymous class is more powerful as we can use many methods as we want, whereas lambda expression can only be used where an interface has only a single abstract method.
Anonymous class is an inner class without a name, which means that we can declare and instantiate class at the same time. A lambda expression is a short form for writing an anonymous class. By using a lambda expression, we can declare methods without any name.
I've seen a lot of questions here about Java lambdas performance, but most of them go like "Lambdas are slightly faster, but become slower when using closures" or "Warm-up vs execution times are different" or other such things.
Anonymous classes enable you to make your code more concise. They enable you to declare and instantiate a class at the same time. They are like local classes except that they do not have a name. Use them if you need to use a local class only once.
A few comments wondering if my benchmark at the bottom was flawed - after introducing a lot of randomness (to prevent the JIT from optimising too much stuff), I still get similar results so I tend to think it is ok.
In the meantime, I have come across this presentation by the lambda implementation team. Page 16 shows some performance figures: inner classes and closures have similar performance / non-capturing lambda are up to 5x times faster.
And @StuartMarks posted this JVMLS 2013 talk from Sergey Kuksenko on lambda performance. The bottom line is that post JIT compilation, lambdas and anonymous classes perform similarly on current Hostpot JVM implementations.
I have also run your test, as you posted it. The problem is that it runs for as little as 20 ms for the first method and 2 ms for the second. Although that is a 10:1 ratio, it is in no way representative because the measurement time is way too small.
I have then taken modified your test to allow for more JIT warmup and I get similar results as with jmh (i.e. no difference between anonymous class and lambda).
public class Main {
static interface ICallback {
void payload();
}
static void measureAnonymousClass() {
final int arr[] = {0};
ICallback clb = new ICallback() {
@Override
public void payload() {
arr[0]++;
}
};
clb.payload();
}
static void measureLambda() {
final int arr[] = {0};
ICallback clb = () -> {
arr[0]++;
};
clb.payload();
}
static void runTimed(String message, Runnable act) {
long start = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 0; i < 10_000_000; i++) {
act.run();
}
long end = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println(message + ":" + (end - start));
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
runTimed("as lambdas", Main::measureLambda);
runTimed("anonymous class", Main::measureAnonymousClass);
runTimed("as lambdas", Main::measureLambda);
runTimed("anonymous class", Main::measureAnonymousClass);
runTimed("as lambdas", Main::measureLambda);
runTimed("anonymous class", Main::measureAnonymousClass);
runTimed("as lambdas", Main::measureLambda);
runTimed("anonymous class", Main::measureAnonymousClass);
}
}
The last run takes about 28 seconds for both methods.
I have run the same test with jmh and the bottom line is that the four methods take as much time as the equivalent:
void baseline() {
arr[0]++;
}
In other words, the JIT inlines both the anonymous class and the lambda and they take exactly the same time.
Results summary:
Benchmark Mean Mean error Units
empty_method 1.104 0.043 nsec/op
baseline 2.105 0.038 nsec/op
anonymousWithArgs 2.107 0.028 nsec/op
anonymousWithoutArgs 2.120 0.044 nsec/op
lambdaWithArgs 2.116 0.027 nsec/op
lambdaWithoutArgs 2.103 0.017 nsec/op
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With