摘要：Groovy用@CompileStatic性能和Java一样，Script比Java慢一个数量级。 在业务方法占主要消耗时间的情况下，均无区别。
先说结论，如上面摘要所述，用Groovy的语法糖的同时如果苛求性能，就加@CompileStatic编译注解。
下面是用punit做的2次并发性能测试结果，第一次是执行一个简单的方法调用，第二个是模拟一个耗时的业务方法。
工程代码，请参考我的git：
http://git.oschina.net/key232323/groovy-performance-test
第一次：（只做计算）
[concurrent] Starting com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
testDoCalJava() - [0.007931ms]
testGroovyInterfaceAndStatic() - [0.006531ms]
testGroovyInterface() - [0.078376ms]
testGroovyScript() - [0.099371ms]
total: 4, failures:0 (GREEN) - 919.502066ms
[concurrent] Starting com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
testDoCalJava() - [0.006065ms]
testGroovyInterfaceAndStatic() - [0.007464ms]
testGroovyInterface() - [0.078376ms]
testGroovyScript() - [0.106368ms]
total: 4, failures:0 (GREEN) - 85.572821ms
[concurrent] Starting com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
testDoCalJava() - [0.007931ms]
testGroovyInterfaceAndStatic() - [0.005598ms]
testGroovyInterface() - [0.079777ms]
testGroovyScript() - [0.091906ms]
total: 4, failures:0 (GREEN) - 500.078843ms
第二次：（Sleep 10ms模拟耗时的业务方法）
[concurrent] Starting com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
testDoCalJava() - [10053.493918ms]
testGroovyInterfaceAndStatic() - [10041.729026ms]
testGroovyInterface() - [10185.924769ms]
testGroovyScript() - [10039.974882ms]
total: 4, failures:0 (GREEN) - 41040.644815ms
[concurrent] Starting com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
testDoCalJava() - [10058.807668ms]
testGroovyInterfaceAndStatic() - [10050.167577ms]
testGroovyInterface() - [10063.309659ms]
testGroovyScript() - [10067.116524ms]
total: 4, failures:0 (GREEN) - 40332.292666ms
[concurrent] Starting com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
com.innohub.bench.runner.Tester
testDoCalJava() - [10028.900451ms]
testGroovyInterfaceAndStatic() - [10028.953634ms]
testGroovyInterface() - [10042.517924ms]
testGroovyScript() - [10037.078679ms]
total: 4, failures:0 (GREEN) - 40468.62882ms