Does the compiler optimize Stringbuffer/StringBuilder.append() for constant strings?

Question

I read Jon Skeet's answer about concatenating strings with +. I wonder whether the compiler also recognizes appending constand strings with a StringBuffer/StringBuilder.

This code for constructing a URL has a good intention:

StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer(constant1);
sb.append(nonconstant);
sb.append("?");
sb.append(constant2);
sb.append("=");
sb.append(constant3);
sb.append("&");
sb.append(constant4);
sb.append("=");
sb.append(constant5);

However, if Stringbuffer.append() is not optimized by the compiler for constants, I'd say the following code would be more efficient:

StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer(constant1);
sb.append(non-constant);
sb.append("?" + constant2 + "=" + constant3 + "&" + constant4 + "=" + constant5);

because the compiler would optimize the + string concatenation at compile time.

Answer 1

Why not try it out? In java 1.7, the main method of the following class:

public class Concat1
{
    private static final String constant2 = "c2";
    private static final String constant3 = "c3";

    public void main(String[] args) 
    {
        StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
        sb.append(args[0]);
        sb.append("?");
        sb.append(constant2);
        sb.append("=");
        sb.append(constant3);
        System.out.println(sb.toString());
    }
}

(I changed the number of constant for clarity) yields the following byte code:

public class Concat1 {
  public Concat1();
    Code:
       0: aload_0       
       1: invokespecial #1                  // Method java/lang/Object."":()V
       4: return        

  public void main(java.lang.String[]);
    Code:
       0: new           #2                  // class java/lang/StringBuilder
       3: dup           
       4: invokespecial #3                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."":()V
       7: astore_2      
       8: aload_2       
       9: aload_1       
      10: iconst_0      
      11: aaload        
      12: invokevirtual #4                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      15: pop           
      16: aload_2       
      17: ldc           #5                  // String ?
      19: invokevirtual #4                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      22: pop           
      23: aload_2       
      24: ldc           #6                  // String c2
      26: invokevirtual #4                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      29: pop           
      30: aload_2       
      31: ldc           #7                  // String =
      33: invokevirtual #4                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      36: pop           
      37: aload_2       
      38: ldc           #8                  // String c3
      40: invokevirtual #4                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      43: pop           
      44: getstatic     #9                  // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
      47: aload_2       
      48: invokevirtual #10                 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
      51: invokevirtual #11                 // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
      54: return        
}

while the following class:

public class Concat2
{
    private static final String constant2 = "c2";
    private static final String constant3 = "c3";

    public void main(String[] args) 
    {
        StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
        sb.append(args[0]);
        sb.append("?" + constant2 + "=" + constant3);
        System.out.println(sb.toString());
    }
}

is compiled to:

public class Concat2 {
  public Concat2();
    Code:
       0: aload_0       
       1: invokespecial #1                  // Method java/lang/Object."":()V
       4: return        

  public void main(java.lang.String[]);
    Code:
       0: new           #2                  // class java/lang/StringBuilder
       3: dup           
       4: invokespecial #3                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."":()V
       7: astore_2      
       8: aload_2       
       9: aload_1       
      10: iconst_0      
      11: aaload        
      12: invokevirtual #4                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      15: pop           
      16: aload_2       
      17: ldc           #5                  // String ?c2=c3
      19: invokevirtual #4                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      22: pop           
      23: getstatic     #6                  // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
      26: aload_2       
      27: invokevirtual #7                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
      30: invokevirtual #8                  // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
      33: return        
}

So apparently, you are right. In the second class the append method of the StringBuilder is only called twice, while in the first case it is called for each constant string.

Answer 2

Does the compiler optimize Stringbuffer/StringBuilder.append() for constant strings?

No.

However, I think that the premise of your proposed optimization is incorrect. I suggest that you take the two versions of the code and compile them. Then use javap to see what the compiled code looks like in each case.

(FWIW, I expect that your "optimization" will not improve the generated code. It will most likely create a second StringBuilder to concatenate the intermediate string, and convert that into a String. You end up with roughly the same number of append operations, plus the creation of an extra temporary StringBuilder and an extra temporary String.)