StringBuilder vs String concatenation in toString() in Java

Question

Given the 2 toString() implementations below, which one is preferred:

public String toString(){
    return \"{a:\"+ a + \", b:\" + b + \", c: \"         


        

Answer 1

For performance reasons, the use of += (String concatenation) is discouraged. The reason why is: Java String is an immutable, every time a new concatenation is done a new String is created (the new one has a different fingerprint from the older one already in the String pool ). Creating new strings puts pressure on the GC and slows down the program: object creation is expensive.

Below code should make it more practical and clear at the same time.

public static void main(String[] args) 
{
    // warming up
    for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
        RandomStringUtils.randomAlphanumeric(1024);
    final StringBuilder appender = new StringBuilder();
    for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
        appender.append(RandomStringUtils.randomAlphanumeric(i));

    // testing
    for(int i = 1; i <= 10000; i*=10)
        test(i);
}

public static void test(final int howMany) 
{
    List samples = new ArrayList<>(howMany);
    for(int i = 0; i < howMany; i++)
        samples.add(RandomStringUtils.randomAlphabetic(128));

    final StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
    long start = System.nanoTime();
    for(String sample: samples)
        builder.append(sample);
    builder.toString();
    long elapsed = System.nanoTime() - start;
    System.out.printf("builder - %d - elapsed: %dus\n", howMany, elapsed / 1000);

    String accumulator = "";
    start = System.nanoTime();
    for(String sample: samples)
        accumulator += sample;
    elapsed = System.nanoTime() - start;
    System.out.printf("concatenation - %d - elapsed: %dus\n", howMany, elapsed / (int) 1e3);

    start = System.nanoTime();
    String newOne = null;
    for(String sample: samples)
        newOne = new String(sample);
    elapsed = System.nanoTime() - start;
    System.out.printf("creation - %d - elapsed: %dus\n\n", howMany, elapsed / 1000);
}

Results for a run are reported below.

builder - 1 - elapsed: 132us
concatenation - 1 - elapsed: 4us
creation - 1 - elapsed: 5us

builder - 10 - elapsed: 9us
concatenation - 10 - elapsed: 26us
creation - 10 - elapsed: 5us

builder - 100 - elapsed: 77us
concatenation - 100 - elapsed: 1669us
creation - 100 - elapsed: 43us

builder - 1000 - elapsed: 511us
concatenation - 1000 - elapsed: 111504us
creation - 1000 - elapsed: 282us

builder - 10000 - elapsed: 3364us 
concatenation - 10000 - elapsed: 5709793us
creation - 10000 - elapsed: 972us

Not considering the results for 1 concatenation (JIT was not yet doing its job), even for 10 concatenations the performance penalty is relevant; for thousands of concatenations, the difference is huge.

Lessons learned from this very quick experiment (easily reproducible with the above code): never use the += to concatenate strings together, even in very basic cases where a few concatenations are needed (as said, creating new strings is expensive anyway and puts pressure on the GC).