Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Java vs Groovy2.0 vs Scala Simple Performance Test

Since Groovy2.0 is out, I want to re-test the performance difference between Java, Groovy2.0 and Scala. The previous tests: Part 1 and Part 2

The machine and the code are the same as the previous tests. The only thing change is that I am using groovy2.0. To make it the results more clear, I am only including the results for f(30) and f(50):

n implementation result Java Groovy2 Groovy2 @CompileStatic Scala
30 for-loop 832040 0 (ms) 0 (ms) 1 (ms) 0 (ms)
30 recursive 832040 19 (ms) 66 (ms) 20 (ms) 20 (ms)
50 for-loop 12586269025 0 (ms) 0 (ms) 0 (ms) 0 (ms)
50 recursive 12586269025 182462 (ms) 356920 (ms) 176468 (ms) 180898 (ms)

I split the Groovy test to two. One with the new annotation @CompileStatic (I put it in the class level) and one without. The one without is suppose to use the JDK7 new feature invokeDynamic which should give some performance gain but unfortunately JDK7 is not supported in Mac Snow Leopard. @CompileStatic is a new feature that give performance gain to groovy code with type safety check where dynamic features are not required. More information here.

The results show that the big performance gain by adding the @CompileStatic which is making Groovy up to par with Java and Scala. The common ways for Groovy developers to solve performance's problem is to write that piece of code in Java. Now with this new @CompileStatic, everything can be just in Groovy. And the ideal case is that if the JDK7 invokeDynamic gives Groovy2 the same performance as Java, then the @CompileStatic is not needed at all (if you want type safe, you can just use another new annotation @TypeChecked).


  1. I don't think Groovy, although using @CompileStatic, is faster than Java...

  2. Thanks for sharing such informative article on Loadrunner Automation testing tool. This load testing tool will provide most precise information about the quality of software. Loadrunner training in Chennai