Imperative Loop or Functional Stream Pipeline? Beware of the Performance Impact!

I like weird, yet concise language constructs and API usages

Yes. I am guilty. Evil? Don’t know. But guilty. I heavily use and abuse the java.lang.Boolean type to implement three valued logic in Java:

  • Boolean.TRUE means true (duh)
  • Boolean.FALSE means false
  • null can mean anything like “unknown” or “uninitialised”, etc.

I know – a lot of enterprise developers will bikeshed and cargo cult the old saying:

Code is read more often than it is written

But as with everything, there is a tradeoff. For instance, in algorithm-heavy, micro optimised library code, it is usually more important to have code that really performs well, rather than code that apparently doesn’t need comments because the author has written it in such a clear and beautiful way.

I don’t think it matters much in the case of the boolean type (where I’m just too lazy to encode every three valued situation in an enum). But here’s a more interesting example from that same twitter thread. The code is simple:

if (something) {
  for (Object o : list) 
    if (something(o))
      break woot;

  throw new E();

Yes. You can break out of “labeled ifs”. Because in Java, any statement can be labeled, and if the statement is a compound statement (observe the curly braces following the if), then it may make sense to break out of it. Even if you’ve never seen that idiom, I think it’s quite immediately clear what it does.


If Java were a bit more classic, it might have supported this syntax:

if (something) {
  for (Object o : list) 
    if (something(o))
      goto woot;

  throw new E();

Nicolai suggested that the main reason I hadn’t written the following, equivalent, and arguably more elegant logic, is because jOOQ still supports Java 6:

if (something &&
  throw new E();

It’s more concise! So, it’s better, right? Everything new is always better.

A third option would have been the less concise solution that essentially just replaces break by return:

if (something && noneMatchSomething(list)
  throw new E();

// And then:
private boolean noneMatchSomething(List<?> list) {
  for (Object o : list)
    if (something(o))
      return false;
  return true;

There’s an otherwise useless method that has been extracted. The main benefit is that people are not used to breaking out of labeled statements (other than loops, and even then it’s rare), so this is again about some subjective “readability”. I personally find this particular example less readable, because the extracted method is no longer local. I have to jump around in the class and interrupt my train of thoughts. But of course, YMMV with respect to the two imperative alternatives.

Back to objectivity: Performance

When I tweet about Java these days, I’m mostly tweeting about my experience writing jOOQ. A library. A library that has been tuned so much over the past years, that the big client side bottleneck (apart from the obvious database call) is the internal StringBuilder that is used to generate dynamic SQL. And compared to most database queries, you will not even notice that.

But sometimes you do. E.g. if you’re using an in-memory H2 database and run some rather trivial queries, then jOOQ’s overhead can become measurable again. Yes. There are some use-cases, which I do want to take seriously as well, where the difference between an imperative loop and a stream pipeline is measurable.

In the above examples, let’s remove the throw statement and replace it by something simpler (because exceptions have their own significant overhead).

I’ve created this JMH benchmark, which compares the 3 approaches:

  • Imperative with break
  • Imperative with return
  • Stream

Here’s the benchmark

package org.jooq.test.benchmark;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;

import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.*;

@Fork(value = 3, jvmArgsAppend = "-Djmh.stack.lines=3")
@Warmup(iterations = 5, time = 3)
@Measurement(iterations = 7, time = 3)
public class ImperativeVsStream {

    public static class BenchmarkState {

        boolean something = true;

        @Param({ "2", "8" })
        int listSize;

        List<Integer> list = new ArrayList<>();

        boolean something() {
            return something;

        boolean something(Integer o) {
            return o > 2;

        public void setup() throws Exception {
            for (int i = 0; i < listSize; i++)

        public void teardown() throws Exception {
            list = null;

    public Object testImperativeWithBreak(BenchmarkState state) {
        if (state.something()) {
            for (Integer o : state.list)
                if (state.something(o))
                    break woot;

            return 1;

        return 0;

    public Object testImperativeWithReturn(BenchmarkState state) {
        if (state.something() && woot(state))
            return 1;

        return 0;

    private boolean woot(BenchmarkState state) {
        for (Integer o : state.list)
            if (state.something(o))
                return false;

        return true;

    public Object testStreamNoneMatch(BenchmarkState state) {
        if (state.something() &&
            return 1;

        return 0;

    public Object testStreamAnyMatch(BenchmarkState state) {
        if (state.something() && !
            return 1;

        return 0;

    public Object testStreamAllMatch(BenchmarkState state) {
        if (state.something() && -> !state.something(s)))
            return 1;

        return 0;

The results are pretty clear:

Benchmark                                    (listSize)   Mode  Cnt         Score          Error  Units
ImperativeVsStream.testImperativeWithBreak            2  thrpt   14  86513288.062 ± 11950020.875  ops/s
ImperativeVsStream.testImperativeWithBreak            8  thrpt   14  74147172.906 ± 10089521.354  ops/s
ImperativeVsStream.testImperativeWithReturn           2  thrpt   14  97740974.281 ± 14593214.683  ops/s
ImperativeVsStream.testImperativeWithReturn           8  thrpt   14  81457864.875 ±  7376337.062  ops/s
ImperativeVsStream.testStreamAllMatch                 2  thrpt   14  14924513.929 ±  5446744.593  ops/s
ImperativeVsStream.testStreamAllMatch                 8  thrpt   14  12325486.891 ±  1365682.871  ops/s
ImperativeVsStream.testStreamAnyMatch                 2  thrpt   14  15729363.399 ±  2295020.470  ops/s
ImperativeVsStream.testStreamAnyMatch                 8  thrpt   14  13696297.091 ±   829121.255  ops/s
ImperativeVsStream.testStreamNoneMatch                2  thrpt   14  18991796.562 ±   147748.129  ops/s
ImperativeVsStream.testStreamNoneMatch                8  thrpt   14  15131005.381 ±   389830.419  ops/s

With this simple example, break or return don’t matter. At some point, adding additional methods might start getting in the way of inlining (because of stacks getting too deep), but not creating additional methods might be getting in the way of inlining as well (because of method bodies getting too large). I don’t want to bet on either approach here at this level, nor is jOOQ tuned that much. Like most similar libraries, the traversal of the jOOQ expression tree generates stack that are too deep to completely inline anyway.

But the very obvious loser here is the Stream approach, which is roughly 6.5x slower in this benchmark than the imperative approaches. This isn’t surprising. The stream pipeline has to be set up every single time to represent something as trivial as the above imperative loop. I’ve already blogged about this in the past, where I compared replacing simple for loops by Stream.forEach()

Meh, does it matter?

In your business logic? Probably not. Your business logic is I/O bound, mostly because of the database. Wasting a few CPU cycles on a client side loop is not the main issue. Even if it is, the waste probably happens because your loop shouldn’t even be at the client side in the first place, but moved into the database as well. I’m currently touring conferences with a call about that topic:

In your infrastructure logic? Maybe! If you’re writing a library, or if you’re using a library like jOOQ, then yes. Chances are that a lot of your logic is CPU bound. You should occasionally profile your application and spot such bottlenecks, both in your code and in third party libraries. E.g. in most of jOOQ’s internals, using a stream pipeline might be a very bad choice, because ultimately, jOOQ is something that might be invoked from within your loops, thus adding significant overhead to your application, if your queries are not heavy (e.g. again when run against an H2 in-memory database).

So, given that you’re clearly “micro-losing” on the performance side by using the Stream API, you may need to evaluate the readability tradeoff more carefully. When business logic is complex, readability is very important compared to micro optimisations. With infrastructure logic, it is much less likely so, in my opinion. And I’m not alone:

Note: there’s that other cargo cult of premature optimisation going around. Yes, you shouldn’t worry about these details too early in your application implementation. But you should still know when to worry about them, and be aware of the tradeoffs.

And while you’re still debating what name to give to that extracted method, I’ve written 5 new labeled if statements! ;-)

Benchmarking JDK String.replace() vs Apache Commons StringUtils.replace()

What’s better? Using the JDK’s String.replace() or something like Apache Commons Lang’s Apache Commons Lang’s StringUtils.replace()?

In this article, I’ll compare the two, first in a profiling session using Java Mission Control (JMC), then in a benchmark using JMH, and we’ll see that Java 9 heavily improved things in this area.

Profiling using JMC

In a recent profiling session where I checked for any “obvious” bottlenecks in jOOQ, I’ve discovered this nasty regular expression pattern instantiation:

Tons of int[] instances were allocated by a regular expression pattern. That’s weird, because in general, inside of jOOQ’s internals, special care is always taken to pre-compile any regular expressions that are needed in static members, e.g.:

private static final Pattern TYPE_NAME_PATTERN = 

This allows for using the Pattern in a far more optimal way, than e.g. by using String.replaceAll():

// Much better, pattern is pre-compiled

// Much worse, pattern is compiled *every time*
castTypeName.replaceAll("\\([^\\)]*\\)", "")

That should be clear to everyone. The price to pay for this is the fact that the pattern is stored “far away” in some static member, rather than being visible right where it is used, which is a bit less readable. At least in my opinion.

SIDENOTE: People tend to get all angry about premature optimisation and such. Yes, these optimisations are micro optimisations and aren’t always worth the trouble. But this article is about jOOQ, a library that does a lot of expression tree transformations, and it is important for jOOQ to eliminate even 1% “bottlenecks”, as they make a difference. So, please read this article in this context.

Consider also our previous post about this subject: Top 10 Easy Performance Optimisations in Java

What was the problem in jOOQ?

Now, what appears to be obvious when using regular expressions seems less obvious when using ordinary, constant string replacements, such as when calling String.replace(CharSequence), as was done in the linked jOOQ issue #6672. The relevant piece of code was escaping all inline strings that are sent to the SQL database, to prevent syntax errors and, of course, SQL injection:

static final String escape(Object val, Context<?> context) {
    String result = val.toString();

    if (needsBackslashEscaping(context.configuration()))
        result = result.replace("\\", "\\\\");

    return result.replace("'", "''");

We’re always escaping apostrophes by doubling them, and in some databases (e.g. MySQL), we often have to escape backslashes as well (unfortunately, not all ORMs seem to do this or even be aware of this MySQL “feature”).

Unfortunately as well, despite heavy use of Apache Commons Lang’s StringUtils.replace() in jOOQ’s internals, every now and then a String.replace(CharSequence) sneaks in, because it’s just so convenient to write.

Meh, does it matter?

Usually, in ordinary business logic, it shouldn’t (again – don’t optimise prematurely), but in jOOQ, which is essentially a SQL string manipulation library, it can get quite costly if a single replace call is done excessively (for good reasons, of course), and it is slower than it should be. And it is, prior to Java 9, when this method was optimised. I’ve done the profiling with Java 8, where internally, String.replace() uses a literal regex pattern (i.e. a pattern with a “literal” flag that is faster, but it is a pattern, nonetheless).

Not only does the method appear as a major offender in the GC allocation view, it also triggers quite some action in the “hot methods” view of JMC:

Those are quite a few Pattern methods. The percentages have to be understood in the context of a benchmark, running millions of queries against an H2 in-memory database, so the overhead is significant!

Using Apache Commons Lang’s StringUtils

A simple fix is to use Apache Commons Lang’s StringUtils instead:

static final String escape(Object val, Context<?> context) {
    String result = val.toString();

    if (needsBackslashEscaping(context.configuration()))
        result = StringUtils.replace(result, "\\", "\\\\");

    return StringUtils.replace(result, "'", "''");

Now, the pressure has changed significantly. The int[] allocation is barely noticeable in comparison:

And much fewer Pattern calls are made, overall.

Benchmarking using JMH

Profiling can be very useful to spot bottlenecks, but it needs to be read with care. It introduces some artefacts and slight overheads and it is not 100% accurate when sampling call stacks, which might lead the wrong conclusions at times. This is why it is sometimes important to back claims by running an actual benchmark. And when benchmarking, please, don’t just loop 1 million times in a main() method. That will be very very inaccurate, except for very obvious, order-of-magnitude scale differences.

I’m using JMH here, running the following simple benchmark:

package org.jooq.test.benchmark;

import org.apache.commons.lang3.StringUtils;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.Benchmark;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.Fork;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.Measurement;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.Warmup;
import org.openjdk.jmh.infra.Blackhole;

@Fork(value = 3, jvmArgsAppend = "-Djmh.stack.lines=3")
@Warmup(iterations = 5)
@Measurement(iterations = 7)
public class StringReplaceBenchmark {

    private static final String SHORT_STRING_NO_MATCH = "abc";
    private static final String SHORT_STRING_ONE_MATCH = "a'bc";
    private static final String SHORT_STRING_SEVERAL_MATCHES = "'a'b'c'";
    private static final String LONG_STRING_NO_MATCH = 
    private static final String LONG_STRING_ONE_MATCH = 
    private static final String LONG_STRING_SEVERAL_MATCHES = 

    public void testStringReplaceShortStringNoMatch(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(SHORT_STRING_NO_MATCH.replace("'", "''"));

    public void testStringReplaceLongStringNoMatch(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(LONG_STRING_NO_MATCH.replace("'", "''"));

    public void testStringReplaceShortStringOneMatch(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(SHORT_STRING_ONE_MATCH.replace("'", "''"));

    public void testStringReplaceLongStringOneMatch(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(LONG_STRING_ONE_MATCH.replace("'", "''"));

    public void testStringReplaceShortStringSeveralMatches(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(SHORT_STRING_SEVERAL_MATCHES.replace("'", "''"));

    public void testStringReplaceLongStringSeveralMatches(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(LONG_STRING_SEVERAL_MATCHES.replace("'", "''"));

    public void testStringUtilsReplaceShortStringNoMatch(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(StringUtils.replace(SHORT_STRING_NO_MATCH, "'", "''"));

    public void testStringUtilsReplaceLongStringNoMatch(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(StringUtils.replace(LONG_STRING_NO_MATCH, "'", "''"));

    public void testStringUtilsReplaceShortStringOneMatch(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(StringUtils.replace(SHORT_STRING_ONE_MATCH, "'", "''"));

    public void testStringUtilsReplaceLongStringOneMatch(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(StringUtils.replace(LONG_STRING_ONE_MATCH, "'", "''"));

    public void testStringUtilsReplaceShortStringSeveralMatches(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(StringUtils.replace(SHORT_STRING_SEVERAL_MATCHES, "'", "''"));

    public void testStringUtilsReplaceLongStringSeveralMatches(Blackhole blackhole) {
        blackhole.consume(StringUtils.replace(LONG_STRING_SEVERAL_MATCHES, "'", "''"));

Notice that I tried to run 2 x 3 different string replacement scenarios:

  • The string is “short”
  • The string is “long”

Cross joining (there, finally some SQL in this post!) the above with:

  • No match is found
  • One match is found
  • Several matches are found

That’s important because different optimisations can be implemented for those different cases, and probably, in jOOQ’s case, there is mostly no match in this particular case.

I ran this benchmark once on Java 8:

$ java -version
java version "1.8.0_141"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_141-b15)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.141-b15, mixed mode)

And on Java 9:

$ java -version
java version "9"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 9+181)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 9+181, mixed mode)

As Tagir Valeev was kind enough to remind me that this issue was supposed to be fixed in Java 9:

The results are:

Java 8

testStringReplaceLongStringNoMatch               thrpt   21    4809343.940 ▒  66443.628  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceLongStringNoMatch          thrpt   21   25063493.793 ▒ 660657.256  ops/s

testStringReplaceLongStringOneMatch              thrpt   21    1406989.855 ▒  43051.008  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceLongStringOneMatch         thrpt   21    6961669.111 ▒ 141504.827  ops/s

testStringReplaceLongStringSeveralMatches        thrpt   21    1103323.491 ▒  17047.449  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceLongStringSeveralMatches   thrpt   21    3899108.777 ▒  41854.636  ops/s

testStringReplaceShortStringNoMatch              thrpt   21    5936992.874 ▒  68115.030  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceShortStringNoMatch         thrpt   21  171660973.829 ▒ 377711.864  ops/s

testStringReplaceShortStringOneMatch             thrpt   21    3267435.957 ▒ 240198.763  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceShortStringOneMatch        thrpt   21    9943846.428 ▒ 270821.641  ops/s

testStringReplaceShortStringSeveralMatches       thrpt   21    2313713.015 ▒  28806.738  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceShortStringSeveralMatches  thrpt   21    5447065.933 ▒ 139525.472  ops/s

As can be seen, the difference is “catastrophic”. Apache Commons Lang’s StringUtils drastically outpeforms the JDK’s String.replace() in every discipline, especially when no match is found in a short string! That’s because the library optimises for this particular case:

int end = searchText.indexOf(searchString, start);
if (end == INDEX_NOT_FOUND) {
    return text;

Java 9

Things look a bit differently for Java 9:

testStringReplaceLongStringNoMatch               thrpt   21   55528132.674 ▒  479721.812  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceLongStringNoMatch          thrpt   21   55767541.806 ▒  754862.755  ops/s

testStringReplaceLongStringOneMatch              thrpt   21    4806322.839 ▒  217538.714  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceLongStringOneMatch         thrpt   21    8366539.616 ▒  142757.888  ops/s

testStringReplaceLongStringSeveralMatches        thrpt   21    2685134.029 ▒   78108.171  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceLongStringSeveralMatches   thrpt   21    3923819.576 ▒  351103.020  ops/s

testStringReplaceShortStringNoMatch              thrpt   21  122398496.629 ▒ 1350086.256  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceShortStringNoMatch         thrpt   21  121139633.453 ▒ 2756892.669  ops/s

testStringReplaceShortStringOneMatch             thrpt   21   18070522.151 ▒  498663.835  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceShortStringOneMatch        thrpt   21   11367395.622 ▒  153377.552  ops/s

testStringReplaceShortStringSeveralMatches       thrpt   21    7548407.681 ▒  168950.209  ops/s
testStringUtilsReplaceShortStringSeveralMatches  thrpt   21    5045065.948 ▒  175251.545  ops/s

Java 9’s implementation is now similar to that of Apache Commons, with the same optimisation for non-matches:

public String replace(CharSequence target, CharSequence replacement) {
    String tgtStr = target.toString();
    String replStr = replacement.toString();
    int j = indexOf(tgtStr);
    if (j < 0) {
        return this;

It is still quite slower for matches in long strings, but faster for matches in short strings. The tradeoff for jOOQ will be to still prefer Apache Commons because:

  • Most people are still on Java 8 or less, currently
  • Most replacements won’t match and both implementations fare equally well for that in Java 9, but Apache Commons is much faster for this category in Java 8
  • If there’s a match and thus a replacement, the speed depends on the string length, where the faster implementation is currently undecided


This micro optimisation stuff matters in jOOQ because jOOQ is a library that does a lot of SQL string manipulation. Every allocation and every CPU cycle that is wasted when manipulating SQL strings slows down the library, and thus impacts all of its users. In a situation like this, it is definitely worth considering not using these useful JDK String methods, and opting for the much faster Apache Commons implementations instead.

Things have improved a lot in Java 9, in case of which this can mostly be ignored. But if you still need to support Java 8 (we still support Java 6 in our commercial distributions!), then this has to be considered.

What you Didn’t Know About JDBC Batch

In our previous blog post “10 Common Mistakes Java Developers Make When Writing SQL“, we have made a point about batching being important when inserting large data sets. In most databases and with most JDBC drivers, you can get a significant performance improvement when running a single prepared statement in batch mode as such:

PreparedStatement s = connection.prepareStatement(
    "INSERT INTO author(id, first_name, last_name)"
  + "  VALUES (?, ?, ?)");

s.setInt(1, 1);
s.setString(2, "Erich");
s.setString(3, "Gamma");

s.setInt(1, 2);
s.setString(2, "Richard");
s.setString(3, "Helm");

s.setInt(1, 3);
s.setString(2, "Ralph");
s.setString(3, "Johnson");

s.setInt(1, 4);
s.setString(2, "John");
s.setString(3, "Vlissides");

int[] result = s.executeBatch();

Or with jOOQ:

        insertInto(AUTHOR, ID, FIRST_NAME, LAST_NAME)
       .values((Integer) null, null, null))
      .bind(1, "Erich", "Gamma")
      .bind(2, "Richard", "Helm")
      .bind(3, "Ralph", "Johnson")
      .bind(4, "John", "Vlissides")

What you probably didn’t know, however, is how dramatic the improvement really is and that JDBC drivers like that of MySQL don’t really support batching, whereas Derby, H2, and HSQLDB don’t really seem to benefit from batching. James Sutherland has assembled this very interesting benchmark on his Java Persistence Performance blog, which can be summarised as such:

Database Performance gain when batched
DB2 503%
Derby 7%
H2 20%
MySQL 5%
MySQL 332% (with rewriteBatchedStatements=true)
Oracle 503%
PostgreSQL 325%
SQL Server 325%

The above table shows the improvement when comparing each database against itself for INSERT, not databases against each other. Regardless of the actual results, it can be said that batching is never worse than not batching for the data set sizes used in the benchmark.

See the full article here to see a more detailed interpretation of the above benchmark results, as well as results for UPDATE statements: