Why does Java switch on contiguous ints appear to run faster with added cases?

Question

I am working on some Java code which needs to be highly optimized as it will run in hot functions that are invoked at many points in my main program logic. Part of this code

Answer 1

The answer lies in the bytecode:

SwitchTest10.java

public class SwitchTest10 {

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        int n = 0;

        switcher(n);
    }

    public static void switcher(int n) {
        switch(n) {
            case 0: System.out.println(0);
                    break;

            case 1: System.out.println(1);
                    break;

            case 2: System.out.println(2);
                    break;

            case 3: System.out.println(3);
                    break;

            case 4: System.out.println(4);
                    break;

            case 5: System.out.println(5);
                    break;

            case 6: System.out.println(6);
                    break;

            case 7: System.out.println(7);
                    break;

            case 8: System.out.println(8);
                    break;

            case 9: System.out.println(9);
                    break;

            case 10: System.out.println(10);
                    break;

            default: System.out.println("test");
        }
    }       
}

Corresponding bytecode; only relevant parts shown:

public static void switcher(int);
  Code:
   0:   iload_0
   1:   tableswitch{ //0 to 10
        0: 60;
        1: 70;
        2: 80;
        3: 90;
        4: 100;
        5: 110;
        6: 120;
        7: 131;
        8: 142;
        9: 153;
        10: 164;
        default: 175 }

SwitchTest22.java:

public class SwitchTest22 {

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        int n = 0;

        switcher(n);
    }

    public static void switcher(int n) {
        switch(n) {
            case 0: System.out.println(0);
                    break;

            case 1: System.out.println(1);
                    break;

            case 2: System.out.println(2);
                    break;

            case 3: System.out.println(3);
                    break;

            case 4: System.out.println(4);
                    break;

            case 5: System.out.println(5);
                    break;

            case 6: System.out.println(6);
                    break;

            case 7: System.out.println(7);
                    break;

            case 8: System.out.println(8);
                    break;

            case 9: System.out.println(9);
                    break;

            case 100: System.out.println(10);
                    break;

            case 110: System.out.println(10);
                    break;
            case 120: System.out.println(10);
                    break;
            case 130: System.out.println(10);
                    break;
            case 140: System.out.println(10);
                    break;
            case 150: System.out.println(10);
                    break;
            case 160: System.out.println(10);
                    break;
            case 170: System.out.println(10);
                    break;
            case 180: System.out.println(10);
                    break;
            case 190: System.out.println(10);
                    break;
            case 200: System.out.println(10);
                    break;
            case 210: System.out.println(10);
                    break;

            case 220: System.out.println(10);
                    break;

            default: System.out.println("test");
        }
    }       
}

Corresponding bytecode; again, only relevant parts shown:

public static void switcher(int);
  Code:
   0:   iload_0
   1:   lookupswitch{ //23
        0: 196;
        1: 206;
        2: 216;
        3: 226;
        4: 236;
        5: 246;
        6: 256;
        7: 267;
        8: 278;
        9: 289;
        100: 300;
        110: 311;
        120: 322;
        130: 333;
        140: 344;
        150: 355;
        160: 366;
        170: 377;
        180: 388;
        190: 399;
        200: 410;
        210: 421;
        220: 432;
        default: 443 }

In the first case, with narrow ranges, the compiled bytecode uses a tableswitch. In the second case, the compiled bytecode uses a lookupswitch.

In tableswitch, the integer value on the top of the stack is used to index into the table, to find the branch/jump target. This jump/branch is then performed immediately. Hence, this is an O(1) operation.

A lookupswitch is more complicated. In this case, the integer value needs to be compared against all the keys in the table until the correct key is found. After the key is found, the branch/jump target (that this key is mapped to) is used for the jump. The table that is used in lookupswitch is sorted and a binary-search algorithm can be used to find the correct key. Performance for a binary search is O(log n), and the entire process is also O(log n), because the jump is still O(1). So the reason the performance is lower in the case of sparse ranges is that the correct key must first be looked up because you cannot index into the table directly.

If there are sparse values and you only had a tableswitch to use, table would essentially contain dummy entries that point to the default option. For example, assuming that the last entry in SwitchTest10.java was 21 instead of 10, you get:

public static void switcher(int);
  Code:
   0:   iload_0
   1:   tableswitch{ //0 to 21
        0: 104;
        1: 114;
        2: 124;
        3: 134;
        4: 144;
        5: 154;
        6: 164;
        7: 175;
        8: 186;
        9: 197;
        10: 219;
        11: 219;
        12: 219;
        13: 219;
        14: 219;
        15: 219;
        16: 219;
        17: 219;
        18: 219;
        19: 219;
        20: 219;
        21: 208;
        default: 219 }

So the compiler basically creates this huge table containing dummy entries between the gaps, pointing to the branch target of the default instruction. Even if there isn't a default, it will contain entries pointing to the instruction after the switch block. I did some basic tests, and I found that if the gap between the last index and the previous one (9) is greater than 35, it uses a lookupswitch instead of a tableswitch.

The behavior of the switch statement is defined in Java Virtual Machine Specification (§3.10):

Where the cases of the switch are sparse, the table representation of the tableswitch instruction becomes inefficient in terms of space. The lookupswitch instruction may be used instead. The lookupswitch instruction pairs int keys (the values of the case labels) with target offsets in a table. When a lookupswitch instruction is executed, the value of the expression of the switch is compared against the keys in the table. If one of the keys matches the value of the expression, execution continues at the associated target offset. If no key matches, execution continues at the default target. [...]