|
|
|
|
|
by stopthe
385 days ago
|
|
Of course, deletion is a whole different story. I was talking about addition in isolation. Anyway, I felt I had to run the benchmarks myself. @Benchmark
@Fork(1)
@BenchmarkMode(Mode.Throughput)
@OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.SECONDS)
public Object arrayListPreallocAddMillionNulls() {
ArrayList<Object> arrList = new ArrayList<>(1048576);
for (int i = 0; i <= 1_000_000; i++) {
arrList.add(null);
}
return arrList;
}
@Benchmark
@Fork(1)
@BenchmarkMode(Mode.Throughput)
@OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.SECONDS)
public Object arrayListAddMillionNulls() {
ArrayList<Object> arrList = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i <= 1_000_000; i++) {
arrList.add(null);
}
return arrList;
}
@Benchmark
@Fork(1)
@BenchmarkMode(Mode.Throughput)
@OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.SECONDS)
public Object linkedListAddMillionNulls() {
LinkedList<Object> linkList = new LinkedList<>();
for (int i = 0; i <= 1_000_000; i++) {
linkList.add(null);
}
return linkList;
}
And as I expected, on JDK 8 ArrayList with an appropriate initial capacity was faster than LinkedList. Admittedly not an order of magnitude difference, only 1.7x. JDK8
Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units
MyBenchmark.arrayListAddMillionNulls thrpt 5 229.950 ± 9.994 ops/s
MyBenchmark.arrayListPreallocAddMillionNulls thrpt 5 344.116 ± 7.070 ops/s
MyBenchmark.linkedListAddMillionNulls thrpt 5 199.446 ± 15.910 ops/s
But! On JDK 17 the situation is completely upside-down: JDK17
Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units
MyBenchmark.arrayListAddMillionNulls thrpt 5 90.462 ± 18.576 ops/s
MyBenchmark.arrayListPreallocAddMillionNulls thrpt 5 214.079 ± 15.505 ops/s
MyBenchmark.linkedListAddMillionNulls thrpt 5 216.796 ± 19.392 ops/s
I wonder why ArrayList with default initial capacity got so much worse. Worth investigating further. |
|
This helps prove my point that adds (and deletes) are generally faster by default when not pre sizing, or removing.
Typically (in my experience) ArrayLists are used without thought to sizing, often because initial capacity and amount to resize, cannot be determined sensibly or consistently.
If in your example you were also to resize the lists, (perhaps adding then dropping those in the Fibonacci sequence?), it would help prove my statement further.
Certainly not worth the -2 points I got from making the statement, but hey you can "please some people some of the time..." :D