Java 8 Streams: multiple filters vs. complex condition

Sometimes you want to filter a Stream with more than one condition:

myList.stream().filter(x -> x.size() > 10).filter(x -> x.isCool()) ...

or you could do the same with a complex condition and a single filter:

myList.stream().filter(x -> x.size() > 10 && x -> x.isCool()) ...

My guess is that the second approach has better performance characteristics, but I don't know it.

The first approach wins in readability, but what is better for the performance?

The code that has to be executed for both alternatives is so similar that you can’t predict a result reliably. The underlying object structure might differ but that’s no challenge to the hotspot optimizer. So it depends on other surrounding conditions which will yield to a faster execution, if there is any difference.

Combining two filter instances creates more objects and hence more delegating code but this can change if you use method references rather than lambda expressions, e.g. replace filter(x -> x.isCool()) by filter(ItemType::isCool). That way you have eliminated the synthetic delegating method created for your lambda expression. So combining two filters using two method references might create the same or lesser delegation code than a single filter invocation using a lambda expression with &&.

But, as said, this kind of overhead will be eliminated by the HotSpot optimizer and is negligible.

In theory, two filters could be easier parallelized than a single filter but that’s only relevant for rather computational intense tasks¹.

So there is no simple answer.

The bottom line is, don’t think about such performance differences below the odor detection threshold. Use what is more readable.

---

¹…and would require an implementation doing parallel processing of subsequent stages, a road currently not taken by the standard Stream implementation

A complex filter condition is better in performance perspective, but the best performance will show old fashion for loop with a standard if clause is the best option. The difference on a small array 10 elements difference might ~ 2 times, for a large array the difference is not that big.
You can take a look on my GitHub project, where I did performance tests for multiple array iteration options

For small array 10 element throughput ops/s: For medium 10,000 elements throughput ops/s: For large array 1,000,000 elements throughput ops/s:

NOTE: tests runs on

• 8 CPU
• 1 GB RAM
• OS version: 16.04.1 LTS (Xenial Xerus)
• java version: 1.8.0_121
• jvm: -XX:+UseG1GC -server -Xmx1024m -Xms1024m

UPDATE: Java 11 has some progress on the performance, but the dynamics stay the same

Benchmark mode: Throughput, ops/time

This test shows that your second option can perform significantly better. Findings first, then the code:

one filter with predicate of form u -> exp1 && exp2, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=4142, min=29, average=41.420000, max=82}
two filters with predicates of form u -> exp1, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=13315, min=117, average=133.150000, max=153}
one filter with predicate of form predOne.and(pred2), list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=10320, min=82, average=103.200000, max=127}

now the code:

enum Gender {
    FEMALE,
    MALE
}

static class User {
    Gender gender;
    int age;

    public User(Gender gender, int age){
        this.gender = gender;
        this.age = age;
    }

    public Gender getGender() {
        return gender;
    }

    public void setGender(Gender gender) {
        this.gender = gender;
    }

    public int getAge() {
        return age;
    }

    public void setAge(int age) {
        this.age = age;
    }
}

static long test1(List<User> users){
    long time1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
    users.stream()
            .filter((u) -> u.getGender() == Gender.FEMALE && u.getAge() % 2 == 0)
            .allMatch(u -> true);                   // least overhead terminal function I can think of
    long time2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
    return time2 - time1;
}

static long test2(List<User> users){
    long time1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
    users.stream()
            .filter(u -> u.getGender() == Gender.FEMALE)
            .filter(u -> u.getAge() % 2 == 0)
            .allMatch(u -> true);                   // least overhead terminal function I can think of
    long time2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
    return time2 - time1;
}

static long test3(List<User> users){
    long time1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
    users.stream()
            .filter(((Predicate<User>) u -> u.getGender() == Gender.FEMALE).and(u -> u.getAge() % 2 == 0))
            .allMatch(u -> true);                   // least overhead terminal function I can think of
    long time2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
    return time2 - time1;
}

public static void main(String... args) {
    int size = 10000000;
    List<User> users =
    IntStream.range(0,size)
            .mapToObj(i -> i % 2 == 0 ? new User(Gender.MALE, i % 100) : new User(Gender.FEMALE, i % 100))
            .collect(Collectors.toCollection(()->new ArrayList<>(size)));
    repeat("one filter with predicate of form u -> exp1 && exp2", users, Temp::test1, 100);
    repeat("two filters with predicates of form u -> exp1", users, Temp::test2, 100);
    repeat("one filter with predicate of form predOne.and(pred2)", users, Temp::test3, 100);
}

private static void repeat(String name, List<User> users, ToLongFunction<List<User>> test, int iterations) {
    System.out.println(name + ", list size " + users.size() + ", averaged over " + iterations + " runs: " + IntStream.range(0, iterations)
            .mapToLong(i -> test.applyAsLong(users))
            .summaryStatistics());
}

This is the result of the 6 different combinations of the sample test shared by @Hank D It's evident that predicate of form u -> exp1 && exp2 is highly performant in all the cases.

one filter with predicate of form u -> exp1 && exp2, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=3372, min=31, average=33.720000, max=47}
two filters with predicates of form u -> exp1, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=9150, min=85, average=91.500000, max=118}
one filter with predicate of form predOne.and(pred2), list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=9046, min=81, average=90.460000, max=150}

one filter with predicate of form u -> exp1 && exp2, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=8336, min=77, average=83.360000, max=189}
one filter with predicate of form predOne.and(pred2), list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=9094, min=84, average=90.940000, max=176}
two filters with predicates of form u -> exp1, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=10501, min=99, average=105.010000, max=136}

two filters with predicates of form u -> exp1, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=11117, min=98, average=111.170000, max=238}
one filter with predicate of form u -> exp1 && exp2, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=8346, min=77, average=83.460000, max=113}
one filter with predicate of form predOne.and(pred2), list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=9089, min=81, average=90.890000, max=137}

two filters with predicates of form u -> exp1, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=10434, min=98, average=104.340000, max=132}
one filter with predicate of form predOne.and(pred2), list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=9113, min=81, average=91.130000, max=179}
one filter with predicate of form u -> exp1 && exp2, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=8258, min=77, average=82.580000, max=100}

one filter with predicate of form predOne.and(pred2), list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=9131, min=81, average=91.310000, max=139}
two filters with predicates of form u -> exp1, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=10265, min=97, average=102.650000, max=131}
one filter with predicate of form u -> exp1 && exp2, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=8442, min=77, average=84.420000, max=156}

one filter with predicate of form predOne.and(pred2), list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=8553, min=81, average=85.530000, max=125}
one filter with predicate of form u -> exp1 && exp2, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=8219, min=77, average=82.190000, max=142}
two filters with predicates of form u -> exp1, list size 10000000, averaged over 100 runs: LongSummaryStatistics{count=100, sum=10305, min=97, average=103.050000, max=132}