CODEWITHSUNDEEP
javaperformance
romesub
romesub

Reputation: 233

if loop processing efficiency

Which of the 2 is better from a processing or optimizing point of view?

I feel Option 1 is more readable, but I've been told Option 2 is more efficient. Is that so?

if (value != null) {
    if (value.equalsIgnoreCase(ApplicationConstants.A)) {
    } else if (value.equalsIgnoreCase(ApplicationConstants.B)) {
    }
}

Option 2:

if ((value != null) && (value.equalsIgnoreCase(ApplicationConstants.A))) {

} else if ((value != null) && (value.equalsIgnoreCase(ApplicationConstants.B))) {

}

Upvotes: 0

Views: 131

Answers (5)

Tom
Tom

Reputation: 44821

There's nothing here to care about performance wise, write your code so it's as readable as you can make it.

When performance testing later highlights areas that need to be optimized then and only then optimize only the places that need it.

To make it more readable you can invert your tests to get rid of the null check:

if (ApplicationConstants.A.equalsIgnoreCase(value)) {
} else if (ApplicationConstants.B.equalsIgnoreCase(value)) {
}

Upvotes: 8

Swagatika
Swagatika

Reputation: 3436

The first option is better as with one condition check you can decide. so if value != null then only it will enter else it will not even enter the conditional block. But in 2nd option it will check if condition , and if false also it wd check else condition (for value == null).

Upvotes: 0

midhunhk
midhunhk

Reputation: 5554

I would go with option 1 as in option 2, more no of comparisons are made.

Upvotes: 0

Prince John Wesley
Prince John Wesley

Reputation: 63698

Option 1 is efficient since there is no redundant null check.

Upvotes: 2

Daniel Lubarov
Daniel Lubarov

Reputation: 7924

I'd expect the first to be slightly more efficient, because && is short-circuit, so it gives multiple conditional branches anyway. But if you want to be certain, time them.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions