What happens to an object that is created but not assigned to a variable? Is it garbage collected immediately?
In one of my programs, I'm testing if creating a particular object throws an exception. In the catch block I'm returning false to the function call if an exception is thrown (I know this isn't the best way to do it).
But in either case if I do this:
new Object();
What is happening in memory?
That depends on the object's constructor. If it stores it's own reference in another object, it won't be destroyed, of course. Otherwise it is destroyed when GC collects the next time.
Such object has no references pointing on it, so it become available for garbage collection and will be destroyed at next GC.
The object will be eligible for GC when the control goes out of the scope(method or block) where it is declared.
Related
I have this piece of code, and I am confused about when the Object o becomes eligible for garbage collection in Java.
public class JustSo
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
for(int i=0;i<4;i++)
{
Object o=new Object();
//o.doSomething();
}
System.out.println("DONE");
}
}
Since it is inside a loop(or any block for that matter), it will become eligible at the end of the loop right?
But I found an answer on a reliable developer site(Don't want to disclose where) that says the earliest the object becomes eligible is at the print statement.
Please clarify.
When it becomes out of scope, so after each iteration of the for loop. An object is eligible for garbage collection when it is no longer reachable, this occurs in 2 situations.
The object no longer has any references point to it.
All references to the object have gone out of scope.
The latter is the situation for the object in question, and it the object's reference is out of scope after the for loop. Prior to the print statement.
As the oracle documentation about the garbagecollector says:
Automatic garbage collection is the process of looking at heap memory, identifying which objects are in use and which are not, and deleting the unused objects. An in use object, or a referenced object, means that some part of your program still maintains a pointer to that object. An unused object, or unreferenced object, is no longer referenced by any part of your program. So the memory used by an unreferenced object can be reclaimed.
This means as soon as an Object isn't referenced from any other Object or is out of scope, it will be marked for deletion. In this case, the reference is out of scope, each time the loop starts again (just before every increment). Thus each object will be marked for deletion at the end of the loop (before the next loop-repetition).
Since you are not saving the reference into some outer-scope variable,and creating new instance each time as soon as single iteration complete, its eligible for garbage collection.
So when you came out of loop, all the objects created inside eligible for GC.
May be you confused with author wording here. Consider below code
for(int i=0;i<4;i++)
{
Object o=new Object();
//o.doSomething();
} -----> objects ready for GC here.
// some other code
// some other code
System.out.println("DONE");
Each time around the loop, around the time when i++ happens, the object will become eligible for GC.
Let's say a method returns some value, but when I call it, I don't assign any variable to accept this RV. Then where does it go? Will GC collect it? Would it be a problem if I use this kind of method tons of times in my code?
Then where does it go?
It doesn't go anywhere. The value / reference is simply discarded. It is as if you assigned it to a local variable that immediately goes out of scope.
Will GC collect it?
It will be garbage collected when the garbage collector detects that it is unreachable. In your example, the method doesn't put the object reference anywhere else, so it will be unreachable immediately.
Note that even if the object is immediately unreachable, it may take some time for the GC to notice this and collect it. (But that's not a bad thing. It is considerably more efficient to forget the object reference and deal with later than to try to reclaim the space immediately.)
Would it be a problem if I use this kind of method tons of times in my code?
Not necessarily. The example code is not doing anything useful, and hence the overheads of allocating the object and then garbage collected are simply a waste of resources. But if it was doing something useful, the overheads are not likely to be a problem. (In ideal conditions, allocating and garbage collecting an object is cheap in Java.)
Unnecessary allocation can be a problem in some cases though:
If you are running with a heap that is too small for the application's working set of objects, the overheads can ramp up.
HotSpot's default "throughput" GC will "stop the world" while the GC is running, so excessive allocations will increase the number o f GC pauses that you experience. (This may or may not matter ... depending on the application.) You can mitigate this by using CMS or G1 as your collector, but that introduces overheads in other areas.
Assuming the value isn't referenced anywhere else, it will be garbage collected
Will GC collect it?
Yes. Since there would be no live reference to the Object returned it would be eligible for GC.
Would it be a problem if I use this kind of method tons of times in my code?
It should not. All the returned Objects will be GCed.
There's nothing that special about a return value over a local variable, consider:
public Object example {
Object a = new Object();
return new Object();
}
Then if I briefly explain how return values work:
When a method starts a new "stack-frame" is pushed on to the stack. It is an area of memory that includes parameter and local variable storage including the return value. It also knows where to return to.
When the method executes, new objects are created on the heap and only pointers to them exist in the stack.
After the code for the method has been run the value of a non-void return method is passed back to the calling method and stored in it's stack frame.
If a non-void return method's value isn't required by the caller, then it will share the same fate as any other local variable in that stack frame. And that is it's value is no longer used. If that value was an object, then garbage collection is already aware of it and is now able to ascertain that it is not referenced and can be collected.
You have one big object in java. it has got 4 or five references. you don't know all those references. At time on deletion you know only one reference and you want to delete that object completely. How to achieve that? and also if you want to know other references then to what is the best way to do that.
It is not in our hand.. You can just nullify it from your end..
Object a = new Object();
a = null; // after that, if there is no live thread which is accessing members,it will be deleted by garbage collector
You could try Finalize() or System.runFinalization() but frankly, if there are references still pointing to the object, then I think the GC will ignore your request.
It is not possible in Java.
If you have strong reference referring your object, you cannot force JVM to GC that object. It simply cannot guarantee the program will work.
If codes of all other references are in your control, consider changing them to use WeakReference or SoftReference
There are some things that are not in our hands and its better to leave it to the JRE to handle it. All we can do that we make sure that the we make them null explicitly after using them.
{
// Some block
HugeObject obj = HugeObject.getInstance();
// Use it
obj = null;
}
// end of block
Java memory handling is just built to prevent that. An object is guaranteed to live as long as a reference to this object exists. As far as I know there is no (official) way to get to know the other references to an object (and there should be no need for that).
In Java GC(Garbage collector) handles heap cleanup. If an Object has no live references to it then it will automatically be cleaned up. So you need to make sure there are no live references to the Object.
Making it null is one of the way. But it will not guarantee it's cleanup if there is some other Object pointing to the same reference. That is why writing good code involves closing all the resources after use which includes making it to null.
If you are running low on heap you can try increasing heap size or calling System.gc() but again calling gc manually does not guarantee gc will actually be performed. it depends on lot of parameters which are JVM dependent.
What kind of references are these to the object? Are these references created by you and at runtime you don't keep track of of those references. If this is the case, you can wrap your references to the object in soft/ weak reference and then explicitly run the GC request. Otherwise, on runtime, if any live thread has access to the object. GC shall not delete that object.
It is hard to answer no knowing your use case, but if there is one location that you want to be able to remove it from then you can store every other reference to it as a WeakReference. Java normally uses strong refrences when referencing objects and the GC will only clear something when it has no more strong references. However, if you use WeakRefrences and your strong refrence ever goes out of scope there is no guarantee that your data will remain even if it is still needed.
I could be mistaken about this though, as I haven't used this class in a year or two.
On WeakReferences:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/ref/WeakReference.html
You can declare your objects as WeakReference and add them in ReferenceQueue. In this way , whenever your object will not be further referenced , it will be liable for GC.
/**
Initialize the reference queue , even if you don't do it , no problem . Default reference queue will be taken.
**/
ReferenceQueue<? super Object> testReferenceQueue = new ReferenceQueue<Object>();
Map<String,String> demoHashMap = new HashMap<String,String>();
demoHashMap.put("SomeValue","testValue");
// Declare the object as weak object and put it in reference queue
WeakReference<?> weakObject = new WeakReference<Object>(demoHashMap,testReferenceQueue );
demoHashMap.clear();
demoHashMap = null; // This object is not referenced from anywhere
if(weakObject!=null){
System.out.println("Object is not GCd yet");
}else{
System.out.println("It is already garbage collected");
}
In some languages like Python, there are ways by we can "delete" an object from the heap explicitly. As for example:
s = "This is a Test"
del s
Now, the object s cannot be used anymore. Now, my question is, can we do anything similar in Java? Yes, I know it is garbage collected, and that is a huge advantage in most situations, but what if I want to manually delete an object? By the way, does del in Python actually delete the object, or does it delete the reference variable? Thanks in advance for any help!
can we do anything similar in Java?
No.
At most you can nullify the object:
s = null;
This will mark the object for garbage collection, and when trying to use it (except when assigning a new value to it), you will get a NullPointerException.
s = null;
...
s.foo(); //this will throw a NullPointerException
in java for sure we cannot delete the object...but we can try with System.gc(); or if we want to lost the reference of a object we can set the value of object reference null; .. but after setting null value we can't access the object but it still remains in memory......
In general you need to null all references to the object after which the object cannot be used anymore and will be deleted on next GC. But string constants objects like "This is a Test" are stored in a pool and are not deleted if even there is no reference to them.
The object will get deleted from heap once it goes out of scope. You can enclose s in the minimal possible scope where it is used. i.e. either enclose within a block of {} braces, or define a separate method where it is used
As Luiggi Mendoza has said you can not manually delete.How ever you can refer it to NULL.
To free the memory you can call System.gc() .But there is no guarantee that memory will be freed.
Before removing an object from memory Garbage collection thread invokes finalize () method of that object and gives an opportunity to perform any sort of cleanup required.
I was reading about the finalize() method and was curious:
What is the difference between the task of cleaning up objects ( setting them to NULL ) in finalize, and removing an object from memory?
What is the difference between the task of cleaning up objects (
setting them to NULL ) in finialize
setting to null removes ONE reference to the object.
if NO more references to an object exists, the garbage collector is allowed (not required) to remove the object
and removing an object from memory?
there is NO explicit way in java to remove (destroy, delete) an object.
The garbage collector will do it when he likes.
Especially the time from removing the last reference to remove/destroy the object is indefinite
There is NO need to set references to null in finalize method.
when the garbage collector call finalize the objects and its references will gone soon anyway.
I never wrote an own finalize method during my very long java experience.
The rare occasion in which it make sense to wrote an own finalize method appear if your object is dealing with os-resources. However, in general you use standard packages for os accesss
You don't "clean up" an object when you set it to null, you're just setting the reference to null, consider:
Object a = new Object();
Object b = a;
a = null;
System.out.println(b);
Once an object loses all references, it will be collected on the next GC pass. Finalize is a method that gets called when this happens, and you should avoid using it.
Just don't keep extra references around and let the GC do it's job.
finalize() is called by garbage collector when an object has no more references. You can override it and best practice is to use it in a try-catch-finally block to free non java resources like files. Anyway if you use it this way you should also call super.finalize() to ensure class hierarchy finalization.
This method is always for advanced use and shouldn't be used in normal production code. Free your resources in finally clauses in methods using those resources.