My TableModel implementations typically sit on an ArrayList to allow for efficient random access performance. However, ArrayList's remove(int) implementation looks fairly inefficient as it involves making a System.arrayCopy(...) call to shift all subsequent elements back by 1.
What approaches to people take to implementing TableModels? Is there a better data structure I should be considering? ... perhaps a 3rd party library?
Some more information: My table data can shrink and grow so any fixed-size buffer implementation isn't going to work.
Thanks in advance.
Your question reeks of "Premature Optimization".
On my computer, System.arrayCopy() can copy 1 million elements of data in roughly 13ms. So I suggest to measure whether this is really an issue. In the general case, ArrayList is faster and has a better memory performance than any other similar data structure.
Using a LinkedList would make all operations on the list (including remove()) slower since you will now have to traverse half of all list elements for each operation (on average). So most operations would go from O(1) to O(N/2).
When implementing a TableModel you need to consider 2 things
1) creating and manipulating the model
2) rendering your table
The first is alot less important performance wise then the second.
You typicaly create your model once and do a tiny amount of manipulation, the rendering engine behind the table continuosly queries your tablemodel.
This means that the retrieval of the information from a model has to be optimal, any action taken to speed up model manipulation at cost of model query is therefore to be avoided.
In my case i need both, heavy manipulation and fast rendering. So the choice i did was a sort of LinkedList implemenation for all manipulation combined with an array, both are kept synchronous , all inserting, manipulation deletion is being done through the linkedlist structure, all rendering with the array structure
If you need to remove elements frequently you could choose a LinkedList implementation. You pay a bit of memory for speedy removals.
Related
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.
What do you use when you need a immutable list with the fastest access/update? LinkedList can be slow if you have to access an element from the middle, and it's prohibitive to create and repopulate it. Binary trees? quadtrees?
If updating is very rare (or the collection is small), an array which you don't write to after intialization is worthwhile. The much lower constant factors (both in time and space) outweigh the linear time update in these cases.
Apart from that, there are a number of purely functional data structures which provide better bounds for these cases. 2-3 Finger Trees (the data structure behind Haskell's Data.Sequence) are one example. Another option are Clojure's vectors and related data structures (e.g. Relaxed Radix-Balanced Trees), which use trees with high fan-out (32 or more) to keep reads cheap and structural sharing to avoid too many copies.
All of these are moderately tricky to implement manually though, especially if performance is important, and I'm not aware of existing implementations (I don't think Clojure's vectors are easy or convenient to use from Java).
I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for but I'll try to give a couple of pointers based on some things I've seen in the standard classes:
CopyOnWriteArrayList is a mutable yet threadsafe list because it duplicates the internal array on updates. Perhaps you could adapt some ideas from that, although it's obviously not efficient for large lists.
ConcurrentHashMap implements similar ideas on a much more complicated structure. It divides the internal hash table into separate partitions, so that changes only need to lock access to the relevant partition.
For an immutable list you could do something similar: divide the list's internal array into several partitions and treat them all as immutable. When you need to change the list, you only need to clone one partition and the index of the partitions, which will be cheaper than duplicating the whole list.
AWTEventMulticaster achieves similar goals, but duplicates the absolute minimum. It's a clever binary tree. See the source.
With a smaller size of internal partition or block, you can get faster updates, but slower access in general. With a larger block (e.g., the entire array) you get slower updates but faster access.
If you really need fastest access and update, you have to use a mutable array.
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.
I have specific requirements for the data structure to be used in my program in Java. It (Data Structure) should be able to hold large amounts of data (not fixed), my main operations would be to add at the end, and delete/read from the beginning (LinkedLists look good soo far). But occasionally, I need to delete from the middle also and this is where LinkedLists are soo painful. Can anyone suggest me a way around this? Or any optimizations through which I can make deletion less painful in LinkedLists?
Thanks for the help!
A LinkedHashMap may suit your purpose
You'd use an iterator to pull stuff from the front
and lookup the entry by key when you needed to access the middle of the list
LinkedList falls down on random accesses. Deletion, without the random access look up, is constant time and so really not too bad for long lists.
ArrayList is generally fast. Inserts and removes from the middle are faster than you might expect because block memory moves are surprisingly fast. Removals and insertions near the start to cause all the following data to be moved down or up.
ArrayDeque is like ArrayList only it uses a circular buffer and has a strange interface.
Usual advice: try it.
you can try using linked list with a pointers after evey 10000th element so that you can reduce the time to find the middle which you wish to delete.
here are some different variations of linked list:
http://experimentgarden.blogspot.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-of-thirty-eight.html
LinkedHashMap is probably the way to go. Great for iteration, deque operations, and seeking into the middle. Costs extra in memory, though, as you'll need to manage a set of keys on top of your basic collection. Plus I think it'll leave 'gaps' in the spaces you've deleted, leading to a non-consecutive set of keys (shouldn't affect iteration, though).
Edit: Aha! I know what you need: A LinkedMultiSet! All the benefit of a LinkedHashMap, but without the superfluous key set. It's only a little more complex to use, though.
First you need to consider whether you will delete from the center of the list often compared to the length of the list. If your list has N items but you delete much less often than 1/N, don't worry about it. Use LinkedList or ArrayDeque as you prefer. (If your lists are occasionally huge and then shrink, but are mostly small, LinkedList is better as it's easy to recover the memory; otherwise, ArrayDeque doesn't need extra objects, so it's a bit faster and more compact--except the underlying array never shrinks.)
If, on the other hand, you delete quite a bit more often than 1/N, then you should consider a LinkedHashSet, which maintains a linked list queue on top of a hash set--but it is a set, so keep in mind that you can't store duplicate elements. This has the overhead of LinkedList and ArrayDeque put together, but if you're doing central deletes often, it'll likely be worth it.
The optimal structure, however--if you really need every last ounce of speed and are willing to spend the coding time to get it--would be a "resizable" array (i.e. reallocated when it was too small) with a circular buffer where you could blank out elements from the middle by setting them to null. (You could also reallocate the buffer when too much was empty if you had a perverse use case then.) I don't advise coding this unless you either really enjoy coding high-performance data structures or have good evidence that this is one of the key bottlenecks in your code and thus you really need it.
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.