Is there a performance difference between a for lo

Question

What, if any, is the performance difference between the following two loops?

for (Object o: objectArrayList) {
    o.DoSomething();
}

and

for (int i=0; i<objectArrayList.size(); i++) {
    objectArrayList.get(i).DoSomething();
}

Answer 1

The only way to know for sure is to benchmark it, and even that is not as simple as it may sound. The JIT compiler can do very unexpected things to your code.

Answer 2

From Item 46 in Effective Java by Joshua Bloch :

The for-each loop, introduced in release 1.5, gets rid of the clutter and the opportunity for error by hiding the iterator or index variable completely. The resulting idiom applies equally to collections and arrays:

// The preferred idiom for iterating over collections and arrays
for (Element e : elements) {
    doSomething(e);
}

When you see the colon (:), read it as “in.” Thus, the loop above reads as “for each element e in elements.” Note that there is no performance penalty for using the for-each loop, even for arrays. In fact, it may offer a slight performance advantage over an ordinary for loop in some circumstances, as it computes the limit of the array index only once. While you can do this by hand (Item 45), programmers don’t always do so.

Answer 3

Accepted answer answers the question, apart from the exceptional case of ArrayList...

Since most developers rely on ArrayList(atleast I believe so)

So I am obligated to add the correct answer here.

Straight from the developer documentation:-

The enhanced for loop (also sometimes known as "for-each" loop) can be used for collections that implement the Iterable interface and for arrays. With collections, an iterator is allocated to make interface calls to hasNext() and next(). With an ArrayList, a hand-written counted loop is about 3x faster (with or without JIT), but for other collections the enhanced for loop syntax will be exactly equivalent to explicit iterator usage.

There are several alternatives for iterating through an array:

static class Foo {
    int mSplat;
}

Foo[] mArray = ...

public void zero() {
    int sum = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < mArray.length; ++i) {
        sum += mArray[i].mSplat;
    }
}

public void one() {
    int sum = 0;
    Foo[] localArray = mArray;
    int len = localArray.length;

    for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
        sum += localArray[i].mSplat;
    }
}

public void two() {
    int sum = 0;
    for (Foo a : mArray) {
        sum += a.mSplat;
    }
}

zero() is slowest, because the JIT can't yet optimize away the cost of getting the array length once for every iteration through the loop.

one() is faster. It pulls everything out into local variables, avoiding the lookups. Only the array length offers a performance benefit.

two() is fastest for devices without a JIT, and indistinguishable from one() for devices with a JIT. It uses the enhanced for loop syntax introduced in version 1.5 of the Java programming language.

So, you should use the enhanced for loop by default, but consider a hand-written counted loop for performance-critical ArrayList iteration.

Answer 4

By the variable name objectArrayList, I assume that is an instance of java.util.ArrayList. In that case, the performance difference would be unnoticeable.

On the other hand, if it's an instance of java.util.LinkedList, the second approach will be much slower as the List#get(int) is an O(n) operation.

So the first approach is always preferred unless the index is needed by the logic in the loop.