Develop Reference

Why 2 similar loop codes costs different time in java

I was confused by the codes as follows:
public static void test(){
long currentTime1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
final int iBound = 10000000;
final int jBound = 100;
for(int i = 1;i<=iBound;i++){
int a = 1;
int tot = 10;
for(int j = 1;j<=jBound;j++){
tot *= a;
}
}
long updateTime1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("i:"+iBound+" j:"+jBound+"\nIt costs "+(updateTime1-currentTime1)+" ms");
}
That's the first version, it costs 443ms on my computer.
first version result
public static void test(){
long currentTime1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
final int iBound = 100;
final int jBound = 10000000;
for(int i = 1;i<=iBound;i++){
int a = 1;
int tot = 10;
for(int j = 1;j<=jBound;j++){
tot *= a;
}
}
long updateTime1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("i:"+iBound+" j:"+jBound+"\nIt costs "+(updateTime1-currentTime1)+" ms");
}
The second version costs 832ms.
second version result
The only difference is that I simply swap the i and j.
This result is incredible, I test the same code in C and the difference in C is not that huge.
Why is this 2 similar codes so different in java?
My jdk version is openjdk-14.0.2

TL;DR - This is just a bad benchmark.
I did the following:
Create a Main class with a main method.
Copy in the two versions of the test as test1() and test2().
In the main method do this:
while(true) {
test1();
test2();
}
Here is the output I got (Java 8).
i:10000000 j:100
It costs 35 ms
i:100 j:10000000
It costs 33 ms
i:10000000 j:100
It costs 33 ms
i:100 j:10000000
It costs 25 ms
i:10000000 j:100
It costs 0 ms
i:100 j:10000000
It costs 0 ms
i:10000000 j:100
It costs 0 ms
i:100 j:10000000
It costs 0 ms
i:10000000 j:100
It costs 0 ms
i:100 j:10000000
It costs 0 ms
i:10000000 j:100
It costs 0 ms
....
So as you can see, when I run two versions of the same method alternately in the same JVM, the times for each method are roughly the same.
But more importantly, after a small number of iterations the time drops to ... zero! What has happened is that the JIT compiler has compiled the two methods and (probably) deduced that their loops can be optimized away.
It is not entirely clear why people are getting different times when the two versions are run separately. One possible explanation is that the first time run, the JVM executable is being read from disk, and the second time is already cached in RAM. Or something like that.
Another possible explanation is that JIT compilation kicks in earlier1 with one version of test() so the proportion of time spent in the slower interpreting (pre-JIT) phase is different between the two versions. (It may be possible to teas this out using JIT logging options.)
But it is immaterial really ... because the performance of a Java application while the JVM is warming up (loading code, JIT compiling, growing the heap to its working size, loading caches, etc) is generally speaking not important. And for the cases where it is important, look for a JVM that can do AOT compilation; e.g. GraalVM.
1 - This could be because of the way that the interpreter gathers stats. The general idea is that the bytecode interpreter accumulates statistics on things like branches until it has "enough". Then the JVM triggers the JIT compiler to compile the bytecodes to native code. When that is done, the code runs typically 10 or more times faster. The different looping patterns might it reach "enough" earlier in one version compared to the other. NB: I am speculating here. I offer zero evidence ...
The bottom line is that you have to be careful when writing Java benchmarks because the timings can be distorted by various JVM warmup effects.
For more information read: How do I write a correct micro-benchmark in Java?

I test it myself, I get same difference (around 16ms and 4ms).
After testing, I found that :
Declare 1M of variable take less time than multiple by 1 1M time.
How ?
I made a sum of 100
final int nb = 100000000;
for(int i = 1;i<=nb;i++){
i *= 1;
i *= 1;
[... written 20 times]
i *= 1;
i *= 1;
}
And of 100 this:
final int nb = 100000000;
for(int i = 1;i<=nb;i++){
int a = 0;
int aa = 0;
[... written 20 times]
int aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 0;
int aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 0;
}
And I respectively get 8 and 3ms, which seems to correspond to what you get.
You can have different result if you have different processor.

you found the answer in algorithm books first chapter :
cost of producing and assigning is 1. so in first algorithm you have 2 declaration and assignation 10000000 and in second one you make it 100. so you reduce time ...
in first :
5 in main loop and 3 in second loop -> second loop is : 3*100 = 300
then 300 + 5 -> 305 * 10000000 = 3050000000
in second :
3*10000000 = 30000000 - > (30000000 + 5 )*100 = 3000000500
so the second one in algorithm is faster in theory but I think its back to multi cpu's ...which they can do 10000000 parallel job in first but only 100 parallel job in second .... so the first one became faster.

What happens inside the JVM so that a method invocation in Java becomes slower when you call it somewhere else in your code?

The short code below isolates the problem. Basically I'm timing the method addToStorage. I start by executing it one million times and I'm able to get its time down to around 723 nanoseconds. Then I do a short pause (using a busy spinning method not to release the cpu core) and time the method again N times, on a different code location. For my surprise I find that the smaller the N the bigger is the addToStorage latency.
For example:
If N = 1 then I get 3.6 micros
If N = 2 then I get 3.1 and 2.5 micros
if N = 5 then I get 3.7, 1.8, 1.7, 1.5 and 1.5 micros
Does anyone know why this is happening and how to fix it? I would like my method to consistently perform at the fastest time possible, no matter where I call it.
Note: I would not think it is thread related since I'm not using Thread.sleep. I've also tested using taskset to pin my thread to a cpu core with the same results.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class JvmOdd {
private final StringBuilder sBuilder = new StringBuilder(1024);
private final List<String> storage = new ArrayList<String>(1024 * 1024);
public void addToStorage() {
sBuilder.setLength(0);
sBuilder.append("Blah1: ").append(System.nanoTime()).append('\n');
sBuilder.append("Blah2: ").append(System.nanoTime()).append('\n');
sBuilder.append("Blah3: ").append(System.nanoTime()).append('\n');
sBuilder.append("Blah4: ").append(System.nanoTime()).append('\n');
sBuilder.append("Blah5: ").append(System.nanoTime()).append('\n');
sBuilder.append("Blah6: ").append(System.nanoTime()).append('\n');
sBuilder.append("Blah7: ").append(System.nanoTime()).append('\n');
sBuilder.append("Blah8: ").append(System.nanoTime()).append('\n');
sBuilder.append("Blah9: ").append(System.nanoTime()).append('\n');
sBuilder.append("Blah10: ").append(System.nanoTime()).append('\n');
storage.add(sBuilder.toString());
}
public static long mySleep(long t) {
long x = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < t * 10000; i++) {
x += System.currentTimeMillis() / System.nanoTime();
}
return x;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
int warmup = Integer.parseInt(args[0]);
int mod = Integer.parseInt(args[1]);
int passes = Integer.parseInt(args[2]);
int sleep = Integer.parseInt(args[3]);
JvmOdd jo = new JvmOdd();
// first warm up
for(int i = 0; i < warmup; i++) {
long time = System.nanoTime();
jo.addToStorage();
time = System.nanoTime() - time;
if (i % mod == 0) System.out.println(time);
}
// now see how fast the method is:
while(true) {
System.out.println();
// Thread.sleep(sleep);
mySleep(sleep);
long minTime = Long.MAX_VALUE;
for(int i = 0; i < passes; i++) {
long time = System.nanoTime();
jo.addToStorage();
time = System.nanoTime() - time;
if (i > 0) System.out.print(',');
System.out.print(time);
minTime = Math.min(time, minTime);
}
System.out.println("\nMinTime: " + minTime);
}
}
}
Executing:
$ java -server -cp . JvmOdd 1000000 100000 1 5000
59103
820
727
772
734
767
730
726
840
736
3404
MinTime: 3404

There is so much going on in here that I don't know where to start. But lets start here....
long time = System.nanoTime();
jo.addToStorage();
time = System.nanoTime() - time;
The latency of addToStoarge() cannot be measured using this technique. It simply runs for too quickly meaning you're likely below the resolution of the clock. Without running this, my guess is that your measures are dominated by clock edge counts. You'll need to bulk up the unit of work to get a measure with lower levels of noise in it.
As for what is happening? There are a number of call site optimizations the most important being inlining. Inlining would totally eliminate the call site but it's a path specific optimization. If you call the method from a different place, that would follow the slow path of performing a virtual method lookup followed by a jump to that code. So to see the benefits of inlining from a different path, that path would also have to be "warmed up".
I would strongly recommend that you look at both JMH (delivered with the JDK). There are facilities in there such as blackhole which will help with the effects of CPU clocks winding down. You might also want to evaluate the quality of the bench with the help of tools like JITWatch (Adopt OpenJDK project) which will take logs produced by the JIT and help you interrupt them.

There is so much to this subject, but the bottom line is that you can't write a simplistic benchmark like this and expect it to tell you anything useful. You will need to use JMH.
I suggest watching this: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/jmh about microbenchmarking and JMH
There's also a chapter on microbenchmarking & JMH in my book: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920042983.do

Java internally uses JIT(Just in Compiler). Based on the number of times the same method executes it optimizes the instruction and perform better. For lesser values, the usage of method would be normal which may not fall under optimization that shows the execution time more. When the same method called more time, it uses JIT and executes in lesser time because of the optimized instruction for the same method execution.

Java: why is computing faster than assigning value (int)?

The 2 following versions of the same function (which basically tries to recover a password by brute force) do not give same performance:
Version 1:
private static final char[] CHARS = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789".toCharArray();
private static final int N_CHARS = CHARS.length;
private static final int MAX_LENGTH = 8;
private static char[] recoverPassword()
{
char word[];
int refi, i, indexes[];
for (int length = 1; length <= MAX_LENGTH; length++)
{
refi = length - 1;
word = new char[length];
indexes = new int[length];
indexes[length - 1] = 1;
while(true)
{
i = length - 1;
while ((++indexes[i]) == N_CHARS)
{
word[i] = CHARS[indexes[i] = 0];
if (--i < 0)
break;
}
if (i < 0)
break;
word[i] = CHARS[indexes[i]];
if (isValid(word))
return word;
}
}
return null;
}
Version 2:
private static final char[] CHARS = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789".toCharArray();
private static final int N_CHARS = CHARS.length;
private static final int MAX_LENGTH = 8;
private static char[] recoverPassword()
{
char word[];
int refi, i, indexes[];
for (int length = 1; length <= MAX_LENGTH; length++)
{
refi = length - 1;
word = new char[length];
indexes = new int[length];
indexes[length - 1] = 1;
while(true)
{
i = refi;
while ((++indexes[i]) == N_CHARS)
{
word[i] = CHARS[indexes[i] = 0];
if (--i < 0)
break;
}
if (i < 0)
break;
word[i] = CHARS[indexes[i]];
if (isValid(word))
return word;
}
}
return null;
}
I would expect version 2 to be faster, as it does (and that is the only difference):
i = refi;
...as compare to version 1:
i = length -1;
However, it's the opposite: version 1 is faster by over 3%!
Does someone knows why? Is that due to some optimization done by the compiler?
Thank you all for your answers that far.
Just to add that the goal is actually not to optimize this piece of code (which is already quite optimized), but more to understand, from a compiler / CPU / architecture perspective, what could explain such performance difference.
Your answers have been very helpful, thanks again!
Key

It is difficult to check this in a micro-benchmark because you cannot say for sure how the code has been optimised without reading the machine code generated, even then the CPU can do plenty of tricks to optimise it future eg. it turns the x86 code in RISC style instructions to actually execute.
A computation takes as little as one cycle and the CPU can perform up to three of them at once. An access to L1 cache takes 4 cycles and for L2, L3, main memory it takes 11, 40-75, 200 cycles.
Storing values to avoid a simple calculation is actually slower in many cases. BTW using division and modulus is quite expensive and caching this value can be worth it when micro-tuning your code.

The correct answer should be retrievable by a deassembler (i mean .class -> .java converter),
but my guess is that the compiler might have decided to get rid of iref altogether and decided to store length - 1 an auxiliary register.
I'm more of a c++ guy, but I would start by trying:
const int refi = length - 1;
inside the for loop. Also you should probably use
indexes[ refi ] = 1;

Comparing running times of codes does not give exact or quarantine results
First of all, it is not the way comparing performances like this. A running time analysis is needed here. Both 2 codes have same loop structure and their running time are the same. You may have different running times when you run codes. However, they mostly differ with cache hits, I/O times, thread & process schedules. There is no quarantine that code is always completed in a exact time.
However, there is still differences in your code, to understand the difference you should look into your CPU architecture. I can explain it according to x86 architecture basically.
What happens behind the scenes?
i = refi;
CPU takes refi and i to its registers from ram. there is 2 access to ram if the values in not in the cache. and value of i will be written to the ram. However, it always takes different times according to thread & process schedules. Furrhermore, if the values are in virtual memory it wil take longer time.
i = length -1;
CPU also access i and length from ram or cache. there is same number of accesses. In addition, there is a subtraction here which means extra CPU cycles. That is why you think this one take longer time to complete. It is expected, but the issues that i mentioned above explain why this take longer time.
Summation
As i explain this is not the way of comparing performance. I think, there is no real difference between these codes. There are lots of optimizations inside CPU and also in compiler. You can see optimized codes if you decompile .class files.
My advice is it is better to minimize BigO running time analysis. If you find better algorithms it is the best way of optimizing codes. In case you still have bottlenecks in your code, you may try micro-benchmarking.
See also
Analysis of algorithms
Big O notation
Microprocessor
Compiler optimization
CPU Scheduling

To start with, you can't really compare the performance by just running your program - micro benchmarking in Java is complicated.
Also, a subtraction on modern CPUs can take as little as a third of a clock cycle on average. On a 3GHz CPU, that is 0.1 nanoseconds. And nothing tells you that the subtraction actually happens as the compiler might have modified the code.
So:
You should try to check the generated assembly code.
If you really care about the performance, create an appropriate micro-benchmark.

Java iterative vs recursive

Can anyone explain why the following recursive method is faster than the iterative one (Both are doing it string concatenation) ? Isn't the iterative approach suppose to beat up the recursive one ? plus each recursive call adds a new layer on top of the stack which can be very space inefficient.
private static void string_concat(StringBuilder sb, int count){
if(count >= 9999) return;
string_concat(sb.append(count), count+1);
}
public static void main(String [] arg){
long s = System.currentTimeMillis();
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
for(int i = 0; i < 9999; i++){
sb.append(i);
}
System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis()-s);
s = System.currentTimeMillis();
string_concat(new StringBuilder(),0);
System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis()-s);
}
I ran the program multiple time, and the recursive one always ends up 3-4 times faster than the iterative one. What could be the main reason there that is causing the iterative one slower ?

See my comments.
Make sure you learn how to properly microbenchmark. You should be timing many iterations of both and averaging these for your times. Aside from that, you should make sure the VM isn't giving the second an unfair advantage by not compiling the first.
In fact, the default HotSpot compilation threshold (configurable via -XX:CompileThreshold) is 10,000 invokes, which might explain the results you see here. HotSpot doesn't really do any tail optimizations so it's quite strange that the recursive solution is faster. It's quite plausible that StringBuilder.append is compiled to native code primarily for the recursive solution.
I decided to rewrite the benchmark and see the results for myself.
public final class AppendMicrobenchmark {
static void recursive(final StringBuilder builder, final int n) {
if (n > 0) {
recursive(builder.append(n), n - 1);
}
}
static void iterative(final StringBuilder builder) {
for (int i = 10000; i >= 0; --i) {
builder.append(i);
}
}
public static void main(final String[] argv) {
/* warm-up */
for (int i = 200000; i >= 0; --i) {
new StringBuilder().append(i);
}
/* recursive benchmark */
long start = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 1000; i >= 0; --i) {
recursive(new StringBuilder(), 10000);
}
System.out.printf("recursive: %.2fus\n", (System.nanoTime() - start) / 1000000D);
/* iterative benchmark */
start = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 1000; i >= 0; --i) {
iterative(new StringBuilder());
}
System.out.printf("iterative: %.2fus\n", (System.nanoTime() - start) / 1000000D);
}
}
Here are my results...
C:\dev\scrap>java AppendMicrobenchmark
recursive: 405.41us
iterative: 313.20us
C:\dev\scrap>java -server AppendMicrobenchmark
recursive: 397.43us
iterative: 312.14us
These are times for each approach averaged over 1000 trials.
Essentially, the problems with your benchmark are that it doesn't average over many trials (law of large numbers), and that it is highly dependent on the ordering of the individual benchmarks. The original result I was given for yours:
C:\dev\scrap>java StringBuilderBenchmark
80
41
This made very little sense to me. Recursion on the HotSpot VM is more than likely not going to be as fast as iteration because as of yet it does not implement any sort of tail optimization that you might find used for functional languages.
Now, the funny thing that happens here is that the default HotSpot JIT compilation threshold is 10,000 invokes. Your iterative benchmark will more than likely be executing for the most part before append is compiled. On the other hand, your recursive approach should be comparatively fast since it will more than likely enjoy append after it is compiled. To eliminate this from influencing the results, I passed -XX:CompileThreshold=0 and found...
C:\dev\scrap>java -XX:CompileThreshold=0 StringBuilderBenchmark
8
8
So, when it comes down to it, they're both roughly equal in speed. Note however that the iterative appears to be a bit faster if you average with higher precision. Order might still make a difference in my benchmark, too, as the latter benchmark will have the advantage of the VM having collected more statistics for its dynamic optimizations.

Loop counter in Java API

All,
While going through some of the files in Java API, I noticed many instances where the looping counter is being decremented rather than increment. i.e. in for and while loops in String class. Though this might be trivial, is there any significance for decrementing the counter rather than increment?

I've compiled two simple loops with eclipse 3.6 (java 6) and looked at the byte code whether we have some differences. Here's the code:
for(int i = 2; i >= 0; i--){}
for(int i = 0; i <= 2; i++){}
And this is the bytecode:
// 1st for loop - decrement 2 -> 0
0 iconst_2
1 istore_1 // i:=2
2 goto 8
5 inc 1 -1 // i+=(-1)
8 iload_1
9 ifge 5 // if (i >= 0) goto 5
// 2nd for loop - increment 0 -> 2
12 iconst_0
13 istore_1 // i:=0
14 goto 20
17 inc 1 1 // i+=1
20 iload_1
21 iconst 2
22 if_icmple 17 // if (i <= 2) goto 17
The increment/decrement operation should make no difference, it's either +1 or +(-1). The main difference in this typical(!) example is that in the first example we compare to 0 (ifge i), in the second we compare to a value (if_icmple i 2). And the comaprision is done in each iteration. So if there is any (slight) performance gain, I think it's because it's less costly to compare with 0 then to compare with other values. So I guess it's not incrementing/decrementing that makes the difference but the stop criteria.
So if you're in need to do some micro-optimization on source code level, try to write your loops in a way that you compare with zero, otherwise keep it as readable as possible (and incrementing is much easier to understand):
for (int i = 0; i <= 2; i++) {} // readable
for (int i = -2; i <= 0; i++) {} // micro-optimized and "faster" (hopefully)
Addition
Yesterday I did a very basic test - just created a 2000x2000 array and populated the cells based on calculations with the cell indices, once counting from 0->1999 for both rows and cells, another time backwards from 1999->0. I wasn't surprised that both scenarios had a similiar performance (185..210 ms on my machine).
So yes, there is a difference on byte code level (eclipse 3.6) but, hey, we're in 2010 now, it doesn't seem to make a significant difference nowadays. So again, and using Stephens words, "don't waste your time" with this kind of optimization. Keep the code readable and understandable.

When in doubt, benchmark.
public class IncDecTest
{
public static void main(String[] av)
{
long up = 0;
long down = 0;
long upStart, upStop;
long downStart, downStop;
long upStart2, upStop2;
long downStart2, downStop2;
upStart = System.currentTimeMillis();
for( long i = 0; i < 100000000; i++ )
{
up++;
}
upStop = System.currentTimeMillis();
downStart = System.currentTimeMillis();
for( long j = 100000000; j > 0; j-- )
{
down++;
}
downStop = System.currentTimeMillis();
upStart2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
for( long k = 0; k < 100000000; k++ )
{
up++;
}
upStop2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
downStart2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
for( long l = 100000000; l > 0; l-- )
{
down++;
}
downStop2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
assert (up == down);
System.out.println( "Up: " + (upStop - upStart));
System.out.println( "Down: " + (downStop - downStart));
System.out.println( "Up2: " + (upStop2 - upStart2));
System.out.println( "Down2: " + (downStop2 - downStart2));
}
}
With the following JVM:
java version "1.6.0_22"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_22-b04-307-10M3261)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 17.1-b03-307, mixed mode)
Has the following output (ran it multiple times to make sure the JVM was loaded and to make sure the numbers settled down a little).
$ java -ea IncDecTest
Up: 86
Down: 84
Up2: 83
Down2: 84
These all come extremely close to one another and I have a feeling that any discrepancy is a fault of the JVM loading some code at some points and not others, or a background task happening, or simply falling over and getting rounded down on a millisecond boundary.
While at one point (early days of Java) there might have been some performance voodoo to be had, it seems to me that that is no longer the case.
Feel free to try running/modifying the code to see for yourself.

It is possible that this is a result of Sun engineers doing a whole lot of profiling and micro-optimization, and those examples that you found are the result of that. It is also possible that they are the result of Sun engineers "optimizing" based on deep knowledge of the JIT compilers ... or based on shallow / incorrect knowledge / voodoo thinking.
It is possible that these sequences:
are faster than the increment loops,
are no faster or slower than increment loops, or
are slower than increment loops for the latest JVMs, and the code is no longer optimal.
Either way, you should not emulate this practice in your code, unless thorough profiling with the latest JVMs demonstrates that:
your code really will benefit from optimization, and
the decrementing loop really is faster than the incrementing loop for your particular application.
And even then, you may find that your carefully hand optimized code is less than optimal on other platforms ... and that you need to repeat the process all over again.
These days, it is generally recognized that the best first strategy is to write simple code and leave optimization to the JIT compiler. Writing complicated code (such as loops that run in reverse) may actually foil the JIT compiler's attempts to optimize.