java为什么LongStream reduce和sum性能之间存在差异？

Question

我使用LongStream的rangeClosed来测试数字总和的性能。当我通过JMH测试性能时，结果如下

@BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
@OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)
@Fork(value = 1, jvmArgs = {"-Xms4G", "-Xmx4G"})
@State(Scope.Benchmark)
@Warmup(iterations = 10, time = 10)
@Measurement(iterations = 10, time = 10)
public class ParallelStreamBenchmark {
  private static final long N = 10000000L;

  @Benchmark
  public long sequentialSum() {
    return Stream.iterate(1L, i -> i + 1).limit(N).reduce(0L, Long::sum);
  }

  @Benchmark
  public long parallelSum() {
    return Stream.iterate(1L, i -> i + 1).limit(N).parallel().reduce(0L, Long::sum);
  }

  @Benchmark
  public long rangedReduceSum() {
    return LongStream.rangeClosed(1, N).reduce(0, Long::sum);
  }

  @Benchmark
  public long rangedSum() {
    return LongStream.rangeClosed(1, N).sum();
  }

  @Benchmark
  public long parallelRangedReduceSum() {
    return LongStream.rangeClosed(1, N).parallel().reduce(0L, Long::sum);
  }

  @Benchmark
  public long parallelRangedSum() {
    return LongStream.rangeClosed(1, N).parallel().sum();
  }

  @TearDown(Level.Invocation)
  public void tearDown() {
    System.gc();
  }

Benchmark                                        Mode  Cnt   Score   Error  Units
ParallelStreamBenchmark.parallelRangedReduceSum  avgt   10   7.895 ± 0.450  ms/op
ParallelStreamBenchmark.parallelRangedSum        avgt   10   1.124 ± 0.165  ms/op
ParallelStreamBenchmark.rangedReduceSum          avgt   10   6.832 ± 0.165  ms/op
ParallelStreamBenchmark.rangedSum                avgt   10  21.564 ± 0.831  ms/op

rangedReduceSum和rangedSum之间的区别在于只使用内部函数sum（）。为什么会有这么大的性能差异

在验证了sum()函数最终使用了reduce(0, Long::sum)之后，它是否与在rangedReduceSum方法中使用reduce(0, Long::sum)相同

Answer 1

我做了与OP相同的任务，我可以重现完全相同的结果：第二个任务的速度慢了约3倍。但当我将预热改为仅1次迭代时，事情开始变得有趣：

# Benchmark: test.ParallelStreamBenchmark.rangedReduceSum
# Warmup Iteration   1: 3.619 ms/op
Iteration   1: 3.931 ms/op
Iteration   2: 3.927 ms/op
Iteration   3: 3.834 ms/op
Iteration   4: 4.006 ms/op
Iteration   5: 4.605 ms/op
Iteration   6: 6.454 ms/op
Iteration   7: 6.466 ms/op
Iteration   8: 6.328 ms/op
Iteration   9: 6.370 ms/op
Iteration  10: 6.244 ms/op

# Benchmark: test.ParallelStreamBenchmark.rangedSum
# Warmup Iteration   1: 3.971 ms/op
Iteration   1: 4.034 ms/op
Iteration   2: 3.970 ms/op
Iteration   3: 3.957 ms/op
Iteration   4: 4.024 ms/op
Iteration   5: 4.278 ms/op
Iteration   6: 19.302 ms/op
Iteration   7: 19.132 ms/op
Iteration   8: 19.189 ms/op
Iteration   9: 18.842 ms/op
Iteration  10: 18.292 ms/op

Benchmark                                Mode  Cnt   Score    Error  Units
ParallelStreamBenchmark.rangedReduceSum  avgt   10   5.216 ±  1.871  ms/op
ParallelStreamBenchmark.rangedSum        avgt   10  11.502 ± 11.879  ms/op

每项任务在第5次迭代后都会显著减速。对于第二个任务，在第五次迭代之后，它会减慢3倍。如果我们将热身计算为迭代，在10次迭代之后，开始时就要慢下来。看起来像是基准库中的一个bug，它不能很好地与GC配合使用。但正如警告所说，这种情况下的基准测试结果仅供参考