Develop Reference

Java List/Set performance

I must work with a Collection, and I am not sure about using a List or a Set. This collection must be sorted, but not by the order of insertion but for another one, so each time a new item is added, a Comparator should be executed in order to reorder the Collection. So, for this reason, an ArrayList could be the best option.
Removing objects from that Collection must be possible too, furthermore, I would really appreciate using removeIf method, so a Set would be the best option here.
Getting and iterating over the Collection will be the most repeated scenario, so it must have a good performance in this scenario.
Seeing that, I think that a Set would be a good decision, however, I was thinking about converting the Set into a List when adding items, then, once the list has been resorted, converting it back to a Set. Is it bad performing? What do you think?
Thanks in advance

Unless you have bulk inserts during which you would need no sorting, TreeSet is fine. Simply measure both solutions.
With TreeSet inserting already ordered items, like rereading a set from disk, performs bad in that even a balanced tree, will have a bit too large depth. That however can be remedied.
For better performance you might go for a B-tree (needs 3rd party code) instead of the binary TreeSet. Measure that too, as typically a facet such as deletion with rebalancing might be done suboptimally.

This depends a lot on how you fill and use your collection and performance of which operation is the most important.
Do you fill the collection with items at once? Or add new elements from time to time? Does the performance of adding elements matter? Or only the iteration performance is important?
If performance is critical, it might make sense to implement a few solutions and compare their performance using a benchmark.
I personally don't believe that iteration performance of a TreeSet is that much worse that ArrayLists or LinkedLists or LinkedHashMaps. Especially compared to linked data structures. Iteration on a tree should not be that different in the performance. But I have no data, so this is just a belief here.
Below are two implementation ideas.
First, if you load a lot of data at once and then add new items rather seldom, load the data into an ArrayList and sort it using Collections.sort. If you need to add another item do a binary search (Collections.binarySearch) and insert the element at the corresponding position. Wrap it all in a custom List implementation and you're good to go.
Next, if you fill the collection with the data "in the beginning" and then the collection is hardly modified, you may simply cache the iteration order in an ArrayList. Every time the collection is modified, reset this list and. When iteration is requested and the list is not null, just use it, otherwise first fill it in the order of the sorted set.

Insert and Update in log(n) time with better performance

I am developing some financial algorithms using Java. I have a complex data structure with many properties that need to be updated during the life time of the algorithm. Sometimes this data structure is updated more than 1000 times ...
To improve the performance especially for get(search)/update/insert I decided to use TreeMap as a container which is quite efficient in that regard.
Now comes the challenging part. I need to update the data-structure properties for which I need to retrieve it from the container which requires:
check if container has the object
if yes, then get the object, else create new object and add to map
update the object if it is present in the container
This process takes THREE x log(n) i.e check, get and put. I want to do this in SINGLE log(n) time.
For that, my solution is:
I always add the object in the map (insert/update/get) using put. put returns the old object, I update the current object with the old values, which solves log(n) but different object lost reference to previous object because the new value is replaced in the map.
Is there any better solution or better container for updating the datastructure. I can use a List and use Binary Search of collections but for that I need to sort the datastructure again as list is not sorted.
Kindly Guide

I think you are doing pretty good.
O(k.log(n)) = O(log(n))
where k is a constant. So your time complexity is actually O(log(n))

You can achieve 1 and 2 in one hit if you switch to ConcurrentMap.computeIfAbsent(...). It returns the new/old object so you can update it.
If Java-7 then putIfAbsent but that requires an extra new - perhaps a bad thing if construction is expensive.

If you are not scared of having mutable objects around (which you seem to have given your proposed solution), you can do it with 1-2 operations. Instead of
1. contains()
2a. exists? get(), modify, put()
2b. doesn't exist? create, put()
you can just do
1. get()
2a. null? create put()
2b. not-null? modify object contents, as you already have reference
this way you have 1 search op for existing objects and 2 search ops for non-existing objects.
If you want to improve it further, you may want to use ConcurrentHashMap (after you get over your distrust of hashcodes ;) and putIfAbsent
1. old = putIfAbsent(createFresh())
2. old not null? update old
Said all that, I'm generally trying to avoid mutable objects for things longer than lifetime of single method. At some point you might want to multithread your processing and having mutable things is going to make it a lot more complicated. But there are various tradeoffs (like memory pressure), so it is up to you. But please look into hashmaps seriously, they are probably biggest optimalization you can do here, regardless of object (im)mutability.

What does it mean when we say that a particular data structure is cache friendly?

I often read that linked list data structure and its variant skiplists are cache friendly in parallel hardware. What does this mean ? Can some one please explain in an easy to understand way .
Edit: The context is in this link .

I often read that linked list data structure and its variant skiplists are cache friendly
linked list and similar structures are NOT CPU cache friendly because each node can be randomly arranged in memory resulting in many cache misses.
An ArrayList by comparison will have all its references sequentially in memory so when a cache line is read in (typically 64 byte long) this can read in 16 references at once.
Note: The objects the List refers to can still be arranged randomly in memory, something you have no control over. :|
From the article in the question.
Besides being well suited for concurrent traversal and update, linked lists also are cache-friendly on parallel hardware. When one thread removes a node, for example, the only memory that needs to be transferred to every other core that subsequently reads the list is the memory containing the two adjacent nodes.
What this is talking about is that a linked list when modified by multiple threads at once (something LinkedList in Java doesn't support) only the nodes of the list which are modified need to be made cache consistent. By comparison if you remove or add an element in the middle or start of an ArrayList, you need to update all the references. Give this is known to be inefficient, its best avoided in any case.
The closest example to this in Java is ConcurrentLinkedQueue which supports concurrent adding and removing. The problem is that any benefit you might gain by being able to update the start and the end in terms of the cache is lost by the fact that this action creates garbage which is much more significant, though still not very significant.
If you use an ArrayBlockingQueue you get better cache and garbage behaviour as the references are continuous in memory, don't require shuffling down like ArrayList and don't create garbage to add an entries. (Unfortunately take() creates an object :P )

Speeding up a linked list?

I'm a student and fairly new to Java. I was looking over the different speeds achieved by the two collections in Java, Linked List, and ArrayList. I know that an ArrayList is much much faster at looking up and placing in values into its indexes. My question is:
how can one make a linked list faster, if at all possible?
Thanks for any help.
zmahir

When talking about speed, perhaps you mean complexity. Insertion and retrieval operations for ArrayList (and arrays) are O(1), while for LinkedList they are O(n). And this cannot be changed - it is 'by definition'.
O(n) means that in order to insert an object at a given position, or retrieve it, you must traverse, in the worst case, all (n) the items in the list. Hence n operations. For ArrayList this is only one operation.

You probably can't. You don't know the size (well, ok you can), nor the location of each element. To find element 100 in a linked list, you need to start with item 1, find it's link to item 2, etc. until you find 100. This makes inserting into this list a tedious job.
There are many alternatives depending on your exact goals. You can use b-trees or similar methods to split the large linked list into smaller ones. Or use hashlists if you want to quickly find items. Or use simple arrays. But if you want a list that performs like an ArrayList, why not use an ArrayList?

You can split off regions which are linked to the main linked list, so this gives you entry points directly inside the list so you don't have to walk up to them. See the subList method here: http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/AbstractList.html. This is useful if you have a number of 'sentences' made out of words, say. You can use a separate linked list to iterate over the sentences, which are sublists of the main linked list.
You can also use a ListIterator when adding, removing, or accessing elements. This helps greatly with increasing the speed of sequential access. See the listIterator method for this, and the class: http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/ListIterator.html.

Speed of a linked list could be improved by using skip lists: http://igoro.com/archive/skip-lists-are-fascinating/

a linked list uses pointers to walk through the items, so for example if you asked for the 5th item, the runtime will start from the first item and walks through each pointer until it reaches the 5th item.
there is really not much you can do about it. a linked list may not be a good choice if you need fast acces to items. although there are some optimizations for it such as creating a circular linked list or a double linked list where you can walk back and forth the list but this really depends on the business logic and the application requirements.
my advise is to avoid linked lists if it does not match your needs and changing to a different data structure might be the best approach.

As a general rule, data structures are designed to do certain things well. LinkedLists are designed to be faster than ArrayLists at inserting elements and removing elements and about the same as ArrayLists at iterating across the list in order. When you change the way a LinkedList works, you make it no longer a true LinkedList, so there's not really any way to modify them to be faster at something and still be a LinkedList.
You'll need to examine the way you're using this particular collection and decide whether a LinkedList is really the best data structure for your purposes. If you share with us how you're using it, and why you need it to be faster, then we can advise you on which data structure you ought to consider using.

Lots of people smarter than you or I have looked at the implementation of the Java collection classes. If there were an optimization to be made, they would have found it and already made it.
Since the collection classes are pretty much as optimized as they can be, our primary task should be to choose the correct one.
When choosing your collection type, don't forget about things like HashSet. If order doesn't matter, and you don't need to put duplicates in the collection, then HashSet may be appropriate.

I'm a student and fairly new to Java. ... how can one make a linked list faster, if at all possible?
The standard Java collection type (indeed all data structures implemented in any language!) represent compromises on various "measures" such as:
The amount of memory needed to represent the data structure.
The time taken to perform various operations; e.g. for a "list" the operations of interest are insertion, removal, indexing, contains, iteration and so on.
How easy or hard it is to integrate / reuse the collection type; see below.
So for instance:
ArrayList offers lower memory overheads, fast indexing (O(1)), but slow contains, random insertion and removal (O(N)).
LinkedList has higher memory overheads, slow indexing and contains (O(N)), but faster removal (O(1)) under certain circumstances.
The various performance measures are typically determines by the maths of the various data structures. For example, if you have a chain of nodes, the only way to get the ith node is to step through them from the beginning. This involves following i pointers.
Sometimes you can modify the data structures to improve one aspect of the performance. But this typically comes at the cost of some other aspect of the performance. (For example, you could add a separate index to make indexing of a linked list faster. But the cost of maintaining the index on insertion / deletion would mean that you'd probably be better of using an ArrayList.)
In some cases the integration / reuse requirements have significant impact on performance.
For example, it is theoretically possible to optimize a linked list's space usage by adding a next field to the list element type, combining the element and node objects and saving 16 or so bytes per list entry. However, this would make the list type less general (the member/element class would need to implement a specific interface), and has the restriction that an element can belong to at most one list at any time. These restrictions are so limiting that this approach is rarely used in Java.
For a second example, consider the problem of inserting at a given position in a linked list. For the LinkedList class, this is normally an O(N) operation, because you have to step through the list to find the position. In theory, if an application could find and remember a position, it should be able to perform the insertion at that position in O(1). Unfortunately, neither the List APIs provides no way to "remember" a position.
While neither of these examples is a fundamental roadblock to a developer "doing his own thing", they illustrate that using general data structure APIs and general implementations of those APIs has performance implications, and therefore represents a trade-off between performance and ease-of-use.

I'm a bit surprised by the answers here. There are big difference between the theoretical performance of LinkedLists and ArrayLists compared to the actual performance of the Java implementations.
What makes the Java LinkedList slower than a theoretical LinkedList is that it does a lot more than just the operations. For example it checks for concurrent modifications and other safeties.
If you know your use case, you can write a your own simple implementation of a LinkedList and it will be much faster.

Rule of thumb for choosing an implementation of a Java Collection?

Anyone have a good rule of thumb for choosing between different implementations of Java Collection interfaces like List, Map, or Set?
For example, generally why or in what cases would I prefer to use a Vector or an ArrayList, a Hashtable or a HashMap?

I really like this cheat sheet from Sergiy Kovalchuk's blog entry, but unfortunately it is offline. However, the Wayback Machine has a historical copy:
More detailed was Alexander Zagniotov's flowchart, also offline therefor also a historical copy of the blog:
Excerpt from the blog on concerns raised in comments:
"This cheat sheet doesn't include rarely used classes like WeakHashMap, LinkedList, etc. because they are designed for very specific or exotic tasks and shouldn't be chosen in 99% cases."

I'll assume you know the difference between a List, Set and Map from the above answers. Why you would choose between their implementing classes is another thing. For example:
List:
ArrayList is quick on retrieving, but slow on inserting. It's good for an implementation that reads a lot but doesn't insert/remove a lot. It keeps its data in one continuous block of memory, so every time it needs to expand, it copies the whole array.
LinkedList is slow on retrieving, but quick on inserting. It's good for an implementation that inserts/removes a lot but doesn't read a lot. It doesn't keep the entire array in one continuous block of memory.
Set:
HashSet doesn't guarantee the order of iteration, and therefore is fastest of the sets. It has high overhead and is slower than ArrayList, so you shouldn't use it except for a large amount of data when its hashing speed becomes a factor.
TreeSet keeps the data ordered, therefore is slower than HashSet.
Map: The performance and behavior of HashMap and TreeMap are parallel to the Set implementations.
Vector and Hashtable should not be used. They are synchronized implementations, before the release of the new Collection hierarchy, thus slow. If synchronization is needed, use Collections.synchronizedCollection().

I've always made those decisions on a case by case basis, depending on the use case, such as:
Do I need the ordering to remain?
Will I have null key/values? Dups?
Will it be accessed by multiple threads
Do I need a key/value pair
Will I need random access?
And then I break out my handy 5th edition Java in a Nutshell and compare the ~20 or so options. It has nice little tables in Chapter five to help one figure out what is appropriate.
Ok, maybe if I know off the cuff that a simple ArrayList or HashSet will do the trick I won't look it all up. ;) but if there is anything remotely complex about my indended use, you bet I'm in the book. BTW, I though Vector is supposed to be 'old hat'--I've not used on in years.

Theoretically there are useful Big-Oh tradeoffs, but in practice these almost never matter.
In real-world benchmarks, ArrayList out-performs LinkedList even with big lists and with operations like "lots of insertions near the front." Academics ignore the fact that real algorithms have constant factors that can overwhelm the asymptotic curve. For example, linked-lists require an additional object allocation for every node, meaning slower to create a node and vastly worse memory-access characteristics.
My rule is:
Always start with ArrayList and HashSet and HashMap (i.e. not LinkedList or TreeMap).
Type declarations should always be an interface (i.e. List, Set, Map) so if a profiler or code review proves otherwise you can change the implementation without breaking anything.

About your first question...
List, Map and Set serve different purposes. I suggest reading about the Java Collections Framework at http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/collections/interfaces/index.html.
To be a bit more concrete:
use List if you need an array-like data structure and you need to iterate over the elements
use Map if you need something like a dictionary
use a Set if you only need to decide if something belongs to the set or not.
About your second question...
The main difference between Vector and ArrayList is that the former is synchronized, the latter is not synchronized. You can read more about synchronization in Java Concurrency in Practice.
The difference between Hashtable (note that the T is not a capital letter) and HashMap is similiar, the former is synchronized, the latter is not synchronized.
I would say that there are no rule of thumb for preferring one implementation or another, it really depends on your needs.

For non-sorted the best choice, more than nine times out of ten, will be: ArrayList, HashMap, HashSet.
Vector and Hashtable are synchronised and therefore might be a bit slower. It's rare that you would want synchronised implementations, and when you do their interfaces are not sufficiently rich for thier synchronisation to be useful. In the case of Map, ConcurrentMap adds extra operations to make the interface useful. ConcurrentHashMap is a good implementation of ConcurrentMap.
LinkedList is almost never a good idea. Even if you are doing a lot of insertions and removal, if you are using an index to indicate position then that requires iterating through the list to find the correct node. ArrayList is almost always faster.
For Map and Set, the hash variants will be faster than tree/sorted. Hash algortihms tend to have O(1) performance, whereas trees will be O(log n).

Lists allow duplicate items, while Sets allow only one instance.
I'll use a Map whenever I'll need to perform a lookup.
For the specific implementations, there are order-preserving variations of Maps and Sets but largely it comes down to speed. I'll tend to use ArrayList for reasonably small Lists and HashSet for reasonably small sets, but there are many implementations (including any that you write yourself). HashMap is pretty common for Maps. Anything more than 'reasonably small' and you have to start worrying about memory so that'll be way more specific algorithmically.
This page has lots of animated images along with sample code testing LinkedList vs. ArrayList if you're interested in hard numbers.
EDIT: I hope the following links demonstrate how these things are really just items in a toolbox, you just have to think about what your needs are: See Commons-Collections versions of Map, List and Set.

Well, it depends on what you need. The general guidelines are:
List is a collection where data is kept in order of insertion and each element got index.
Set is a bag of elements without duplication (if you reinsert the same element, it won't be added). Data doesn't have the notion of order.
Map You access and write your data elements by their key, which could be any possible object.
Attribution: https://stackoverflow.com/a/21974362/2811258
For more information about Java Collections, check out this article.

As suggested in other answers, there are different scenarios to use correct collection depending on use case. I am listing few points,
ArrayList:
Most cases where you just need to store or iterate through a "bunch of things" and later iterate through them. Iterating is faster as its index based.
Whenever you create an ArrayList, a fixed amount of memory is allocated to it and once exceeded, it copies the whole array
LinkedList:
It uses doubly linked list so insertion and deletion operation will be fast as it will only add or remove a node.
Retrieving is slow as it will have to iterate through the nodes.
HashSet:
Making other yes-no decisions about an item, e.g. "is the item a word of English", "is the item in the database?" , "is the item in this category?" etc.
Remembering "which items you've already processed", e.g. when doing a web crawl;
HashMap:
Used in cases where you need to say "for a given X, what is the Y"? It is often useful for implementing in-memory caches or indexes i.e key value pairs For example:
For a given user ID, what is their cached name/User object?.
Always go with HashMap to perform a lookup.
Vector and Hashtable are synchronized and therefore bit slower and If synchronization is needed, use Collections.synchronizedCollection().
Check This for sorted collections.
Hope this hepled.

I found Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java to be very helpful. He compares the different collections very well. I used to keep a diagram he published showing the inheritance heirachy on my cube wall as a quick reference. One thing I suggest you do is keep in mind thread safety. Performance usually means not thread safe.

Use Map for key-value pairing
For key-value tracking, use Map implementation.
For example, tracking which person is covering which day of the weekend. So we want to map a DayOfWeek object to an Employee object.
Map < DayOfWeek , Employee > weekendWorker =
Map.of(
DayOfWeek.SATURDAY , alice ,
DayOfWeek.SUNDAY , bob
)
;
When choosing one of the Map implementations, there are several aspects to consider. These include: concurrency, tolerance for NULL values in key and/or value, order when iterating keys, tracking by reference versus content, and convenience of literals syntax.
Here is a chart I made showing the various aspects of each of the ten Map implementations bundled with Java 11.