Performance is a critical quality attribute in software development, yet the impact of method-level code changes on performance evolution remains poorly understood. While developers often make intuitive assumptions about which types of modifications are likely to cause performance regressions or improvements, these beliefs lack empirical validation at a fine-grained level. We conducted a large-scale empirical study analyzing performance evolution in 15 mature open-source Java projects hosted on GitHub. Our analysis encompassed 739 commits containing 1,499 method-level code changes, using Java Microbenchmark Harness (JMH) for precise performance measurement and rigorous statistical analysis to quantify both the significance and magnitude of performance variations. We employed bytecode instrumentation to capture method-specific execution metrics and systematically analyzed four key aspects: temporal performance patterns, code change type correlations, developer and complexity factors, and domain-size interactions. Our findings reveal that 32.7% of method-level changes result in measurable performance impacts, with regressions occurring 1.3 times more frequently than improvements. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we found no significant differences in performance impact distributions across code change categories, challenging risk-stratified development strategies. Algorithmic changes demonstrate the highest improvement potential but carry substantial regression risk. Senior developers produce more stable changes with fewer extreme variations, while code complexity correlates with increased regression likelihood. Domain-size interactions reveal significant patterns, with web server + small projects exhibiting the highest performance instability. Our study provides empirical evidence for integrating automated performance testing into continuous integration pipelines.