动态反射最新版本 4.0.9.22 性能报告
1. 反射调用 VS 动态编译调用 获取、设置值
循环次数: 100000
结果:
![](https://images.cnblogs.com/OutliningIndicators/ExpandedBlockStart.gif)
------ Test started: Assembly: Pixysoft.Framework.Reflection.dll ------
reflection
Time Elapsed: 514ms
CPU time: 500,000,000ns
Gen 0: 0
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
dynamic
Time Elapsed: 366ms
CPU time: 234,375,000ns
Gen 0: 132
Gen 1: 1
Gen 2: 0
1 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 1.11 seconds (Ad hoc).
reflection
Time Elapsed: 514ms
CPU time: 500,000,000ns
Gen 0: 0
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
dynamic
Time Elapsed: 366ms
CPU time: 234,375,000ns
Gen 0: 132
Gen 1: 1
Gen 2: 0
1 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 1.11 seconds (Ad hoc).
结论:性能比较接近,证明反射的性能不是非常差。
2. AOP 使用IMessageSink的attribute模式 VS RealProxy VS DynamicProxy
循环: 10000
结果:
![](https://images.cnblogs.com/OutliningIndicators/ExpandedBlockStart.gif)
------ Test started: Assembly: Pixysoft.Framework.Reflection.dll ------
aop
Time Elapsed: 961ms
CPU time: 953,125,000ns
Gen 0: 71
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
real
Time Elapsed: 72ms
CPU time: 78,125,000ns
Gen 0: 8
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
dynamic
Time Elapsed: 59ms
CPU time: 62,500,000ns
Gen 0: 8
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
1 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 1.20 seconds (Ad hoc).
aop
Time Elapsed: 961ms
CPU time: 953,125,000ns
Gen 0: 71
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
real
Time Elapsed: 72ms
CPU time: 78,125,000ns
Gen 0: 8
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
dynamic
Time Elapsed: 59ms
CPU time: 62,500,000ns
Gen 0: 8
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
1 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 1.20 seconds (Ad hoc).
比微软的RealProxy性能好一点点。
3. 反射获取设置值 VS 动态编译获取设置值 VS BeanMap获取设置值
循环 100000
结果:
![](https://images.cnblogs.com/OutliningIndicators/ExpandedBlockStart.gif)
------ Test started: Assembly: Pixysoft.Framework.Reflection.dll ------
reflect
Time Elapsed: 2,703ms
CPU time: 2,671,875,000ns
Gen 0: 39
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
dynamic
Time Elapsed: 834ms
CPU time: 843,750,000ns
Gen 0: 457
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
beanmap
Time Elapsed: 861ms
CPU time: 828,125,000ns
Gen 0: 205
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
1 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 4.52 seconds (Ad hoc).
reflect
Time Elapsed: 2,703ms
CPU time: 2,671,875,000ns
Gen 0: 39
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
dynamic
Time Elapsed: 834ms
CPU time: 843,750,000ns
Gen 0: 457
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
beanmap
Time Elapsed: 861ms
CPU time: 828,125,000ns
Gen 0: 205
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
1 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 4.52 seconds (Ad hoc).
性能上beanmap和dynamictype接近,但是处理方便。
4. 反射获取Type信息 VS 动态编译获取Type信息
循环 100000
结果:
![](https://images.cnblogs.com/OutliningIndicators/ExpandedBlockStart.gif)
------ Test started: Assembly: Pixysoft.Framework.Reflection.dll ------
reflection
Time Elapsed: 268ms
CPU time: 250,000,000ns
Gen 0: 72
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
emit with handler cache
Time Elapsed: 229ms
CPU time: 218,750,000ns
Gen 0: 19
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
1 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 0.59 seconds (Ad hoc).
reflection
Time Elapsed: 268ms
CPU time: 250,000,000ns
Gen 0: 72
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
emit with handler cache
Time Elapsed: 229ms
CPU time: 218,750,000ns
Gen 0: 19
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
1 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 0.59 seconds (Ad hoc).
再次说明了,反射的性能实际上不差。
5. RealProxy实现POJO VS 动态编译实现POJO VS 直接创建POJO
循环 100000
结果:
![](https://images.cnblogs.com/OutliningIndicators/ExpandedBlockStart.gif)
------ Test started: Assembly: Pixysoft.Framework.Reflection.dll ------
proxy
Time Elapsed: 3,090ms
CPU time: 2,843,750,000ns
Gen 0: 498
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
dproxy dynamic constructor
Time Elapsed: 122ms
CPU time: 125,000,000ns
Gen 0: 47
Gen 1: 1
Gen 2: 0
direct
Time Elapsed: 4ms
CPU time: 0ns
Gen 0: 2
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
1 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 3.41 seconds (Ad hoc).
proxy
Time Elapsed: 3,090ms
CPU time: 2,843,750,000ns
Gen 0: 498
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
dproxy dynamic constructor
Time Elapsed: 122ms
CPU time: 125,000,000ns
Gen 0: 47
Gen 1: 1
Gen 2: 0
direct
Time Elapsed: 4ms
CPU time: 0ns
Gen 0: 2
Gen 1: 0
Gen 2: 0
1 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 3.41 seconds (Ad hoc).
可见动态编译的得到的对象再进行操作,性能是非常高的!