Performance: greater / smaller than vs not equal to

sql not equal to multiple values
is faster than
sql not equal performance

I wonder if there is a difference in performance between

checking if a value is greater / smaller than another

for(int x = 0; x < y; x++); // for y > x

and

checking if a value is not equal to another

for(int x = 0; x != y; x++); // for y > x

and why?

In addition: What if I compare to zero, is there a further difference?

It would be nice if the answers also consider an assebled view on the code.

EDIT: As most of you pointed out the difference in performance of course is negligible but I'm interested in the difference on the cpu level. Which operation is more complex?

To me it's more a question to learn / understand the technique.

I removed the Java tag, which I added accidentally because the question was meant generally not just based on Java, sorry.

Is there any performance difference when using not equal vs just , Nope! If you see assembly level code of both the blocks they will look same. So, no difference at all. Here the assumption is that you aren't� The sql Greater Than or Equal To operator is used to check whether the left-hand operator is higher than or equal to the right-hand operator or not. If left-hand operator higher than or equal to right-hand operator then condition will be true and it will return matched records. Less Than or Equal To (<=) Operator.

The performance is absolutely negligible. Here's some code to prove it:

public class OpporatorPerformance {
    static long y = 300000000L;

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("Test One: " + testOne());
        System.out.println("Test Two: " + testTwo());
        System.out.println("Test One: " + testOne());
        System.out.println("Test Two: " + testTwo());
        System.out.println("Test One: " + testOne());
        System.out.println("Test Two: " + testTwo());
        System.out.println("Test One: " + testOne());
        System.out.println("Test Two: " + testTwo());

    }

    public static long testOne() {
        Date newDate = new Date();
        int z = 0;
        for(int x = 0; x < y; x++){ // for y > x
            z = x;
        }
        return new Date().getTime() - newDate.getTime();
    }

    public static long testTwo() {
        Date newDate = new Date();
        int z = 0;
        for(int x = 0; x != y; x++){ // for y > x
            z = x;
        }
        return new Date().getTime() - newDate.getTime();
    }

}

The results:

Test One: 342
Test Two: 332
Test One: 340
Test Two: 340
Test One: 415
Test Two: 325
Test One: 393
Test Two: 329

Less Than Vs Less Than or Equal To, How to know the difference between Less Than and Less Than or Equal To. I am not sure how PHP boils down those operations and how the ALU will performance gain to be had in PHP when using either less than or less than or equal to� When two values are definitely not equal we use the "not equal to" sign. example: 2+2 ≠ 9 < When one value is smaller than another we use a "less than" sign. example: 3 < 5 > When one value is bigger than another we use a "greater than" sign. example: 9 > 6

There is rarely a performance hit but the first is much more reliable as it will handle both of the extraordinary cases where

  1. y < 0 to start
  2. x or y are messed with inside the block.

SQL Not Equal Operator introduction and examples, This article explores the SQL Not Equal comparison operator () along with its usage scenarios. For example, we might compare the performance of two authors based The total number of articles written by Rajendra > (Greater than) the This time query took less time to return the same number of rows. Greater than or equal to. The greater than or equal to operator (>=) returns TRUE if the first value is greater than or equal to the second value. 1. For example, take a look at the formula in cell C1 below. Explanation: the formula returns TRUE because the value in cell A1 is greater than or equal to the value in cell B1. 2.

Now 6 years later and after still receiving occasional notifications from this question I'd like to add some insights that I've gained during my computer science study.

Putting the above statements into a small program and compiling it...

public class Comp {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        int y = 42;

        for(int x = 0; x < y; x++) {
            // stop if x >= y
        }

        for(int x = 0; x != y; x++) {
            // stop if x == y
        }
    }
}

... we get the following bytecode:

  public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
    Code:
       // y = 42
       0: bipush        42  
       2: istore_1

       // first for-loop
       3: iconst_0
       4: istore_2
       5: iload_2
       6: iload_1
       7: if_icmpge     16      // jump out of loop if x => y
      10: iinc          2, 1
      13: goto          5

       // second for-loop
      16: iconst_0
      17: istore_2
      18: iload_2
      19: iload_1
      20: if_icmpeq     29      // jump out of loop if x == y
      23: iinc          2, 1
      26: goto          18

      29: return

As we can see, on bytecode level both are handled in the same way and use a single bytecode instruction for the comparison.

As already stated, how the bytecode is translated into assembler/machine code depends on the JVM. But generally this conditional jumps can be translated to some assembly code like this:

; condition of first loop
CMP eax, ebx
JGE label  ; jump if eax > ebx

; condition of second loop
CMP eax, ebx
JE  label  ; jump if eax == ebx

On hardware level JGE and JE have the same complexity.

So all in all: Regarding performance, both x < y and x != y are theoretically the same on hardware level and one isn't per se faster or slower than the other.

Comparisons, If the first character from the first string is greater (or less) than the other string's, then the A capital letter "A" is not equal to the lowercase "a" . For example, 4 or 3 ≥ 1 shows us a greater sign over half an equal sign, meaning that 4 or 3 are greater than or equal to 1. It works the other way, too. 1 ≤ 2 or 3 shows us a less than sign over half of an equal sign, so we know it means that 1 is less than or equal to 2 or 3. The “does not equal” sign is even easier!

Other people seem to have answered from a measured perspective, but from the machine level you'd be interested in the Arithmetic Logic Unit (ALU), which handles the mathy bits on a "normal computer". There seems to be a pretty good detail in How does less than and greater than work on a logical level in binary? for complete details.

From purely a logical level, the short answer is that it's easier to tell if something is not something than it is to tell if something is relative to something, however this has likely been optimized in your standard personal computer or server, so you'll only see actual gains likely in small personal builds like on-board computers for drones or other micro-technologies.

Comparison operators, Equals. True if the items are equal. ≠. Not Equal To. True if the items are not equal. > Greater Than. True if the value on the left exceeds that on the right. <. Less� Testing for the opposite, not equal, is very similar. Remember that this test will return true if the values tested are not equal to each other. To see if two numeric values are not equal to each other, we use the comparison operator !=. To see if two string values are not equal to each other, we use the comparison operator ne (Not Equal).

MariaDB: Comparison Operators, Equal. <=>, Equal (Safe to compare NULL values). <>, Not Equal != Not Equal. > Greater Than. >= Greater Than or Equal. <, Less Than. <= Less Than or Equal. [Between] means “greater than or equal to low value and less than or equal to high value.” They are the same from a semantic point of view. But SQL is a declarative language. In other words, you wouldn’t expect same execution plan with two semantically identical statements, would you?

Learn Double vs. Triple Equal Performance – Deep JavaScript , Kyle explains the performance impacts of double and triple equal operator. Triple equals is not more than twice as fast as double equals, it's about 30% faster than Let me extrapolate that same comparison to the larger topic of coercion. (a == b) is not true.!= If values of two operands are not equal, then condition becomes true. (a != b) is true. <> If values of two operands are not equal, then condition becomes true. (a <> b) is true. This is similar to != operator. > If the value of left operand is greater than the value of right operand, then condition becomes true. (a > b

Comparison Operators, Less Than (or Equal To); Greater Than (or Equal To); Equal to; Not Equal to. Comparison operators enable you to compare values in the� Technically COP has been designed for vapour compression cycle and it is alwats greater than 1. because if it is less than 1 than the efficiency will become more than 1, which impractical. however

Comments
  • Perhaps relevant: en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Microprocessor_Design/ALU_Flags
  • +1 I've always loved your answers to the question regarding performance and efficiency. Specially because I'm too bad at it :)
  • @RohitJain Or you realise it's not as easy as just guessing what might be a good idea. It is very hard to find an example which is better for performances reason even if it is more obscure.
  • @PeterLawrey +1 Agreed. Obscurity for the sake of performance should not even be considered unless your application needs to run as optimally as possible (Such as running under environments with limited memory/computing abilities, or some ultra-complex simulation that needs as much juice as possible). Otherwise you're wasting all that free space, yo.
  • @SuperCat Agreed, and you can prove that the more obscure code is actually faster. ;) This is often missing. BTW The JVM optimises common/specific patterns of code. This means that if you use an uncommon pattern (as far as the JVM is concerned) your code is likely to be slower not faster even if in theory it could be faster if you used a different compiler.
  • Honestly, I'm annoyed by answers like these. My application runs on a specific JVM with specific specs and I have a single loop with a few statements that should be executed as many times as possible in a short timespan. Even moving a method out of an if statement and saving its result in a variable to then put that variable in the if made a clearly measurable impact!
  • +1 On my last run I got Test One: 113 Test Two: 113 on my laptop.
  • You should use System.nanoTime() for benchmarking, that gives you more precision.
  • @RohitJain, thanks! Somehow I hadn't learned that yet. The thing I like about it is that now I don't need to import java.util.Date. Although, the javadoc does say that "This method provides nanosecond precision, but not necessarily nanosecond resolution (that is, how frequently the value changes) - no guarantees are made except that the resolution is at least as good as that of currentTimeMillis()." So, I wouldn't necessarily trust the accuracy of the extra precision.
  • I wouldn't trust Date().getTime() - you're creating a new object just to measure the time, which may actually obscure the benchmark. Why not use nanoTime() or at least currentTimeMillis() (which is one of the fastest calls btw)?
  • It is worth noting that more types support != than < (all iterators, for instance, as opposed to just random access iterators), thus != is usually used for consistency.
  • why did this get an upvote? Test it yourself and then provide us an answer, not another question.