You are trying to micro-optimize here, and that's generally a big no-no. Unless you have performance analytics which are showing you that this is an issue, it's not even worth changing.
For general use, the correct answer is whatever is easier to maintain.
For the hell of it though, the IL for the null coalescing operator is:
L_0001: ldsfld string ConsoleApplication2.Program::myString
L_0006: dup
L_0007: brtrue.s L_000f
L_0009: pop
L_000a: ldsfld string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty
L_000f: stloc.0
And the IL for the switch is:
L_0001: ldsfld string ConsoleApplication2.Program::myString
L_0006: brfalse.s L_000f
L_0008: ldsfld string ConsoleApplication2.Program::myString
L_000d: br.s L_0014
L_000f: ldsfld string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty
L_0014: stloc.0
For the null coalescing operator, if the value is null
, then six of the statements are executed, whereas with the switch
, four operations are performed.
In the case of a not null
value, the null coalescing operator performs four operations versus five operations.
Of course, this assumes that all IL operations take the same amount of time, which is not the case.
Anyways, hopefully you can see how optimizing on this micro scale can start to diminish returns pretty quickly.
That being said, in the end, for most cases whatever is the easiest to read and maintain in this case is the right answer.
If you find you are doing this on a scale where it proves to be inefficient (and those cases are few and far between), then you should measure to see which has a better performance and then make that specific optimization.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…