Optional vs if/else-if performance java 8

Question

Hello i have two samples of code

if/else if/else statements

private Object getObj(message) {
        if (message.getA() != null)
            return message.getA();
        else if (message.getB() != null)
            return message.getB();
        else if (message.getC() != null)
            return message.getC();
        else return null;
}

Optional statements

private Optional<Object> wrap(Object o){
    return Optional.ofNullable(o);
}

private Object getObj(message) {
    return  wrap(message.getA())
            .orElseGet(() -> wrap(message.getB())
            .orElseGet(() -> wrap(message.getC())
            .orElse(null)));
}

So my question is how these two compare in terms of performance (i have about 15-20 if-else statements on actual code)?

Is it worth refactoring the code readability vs performance or is a misusage of optionals?

Also what is the performance penalty in case the if/else-if statements grown to 100+?

Thanks in advance

Answer 1

Don't use Optionals for conditional logic.

They were designed, to be returned from a method to indicate a potentially absent value.

Just because you can nicely chain them into a single line doesn't mean that it's understandable. Also you literally gain nothing. The performance overhead may be significant. In the worst case N objects being created and then discarded. Just stay with your "normal" if-else chains.

---

Instead of finding ways to make your current code more readable, take a step back and ask yourself why you need 15-20 if-else statements. Can you split some logic up? Why do you need a getter for so many different fields with potentially different types in the first place? etc.

Answer 2

There is a third form (allowing still some variation).

return Stream.<Supplier<Object>>of(message::getA, message::getB, message::getC)
        .map(Supplier::get)
        .filter(Objects::nonNull)
        .findFirst()
        .orElse(null);

Probably the least flexible and efficient at this moment, but clear.