Map clear vs null

Question

I have a map that I use to store dynamic data that are discarded as soon as they are created (i.e. used; they are consumed quickly). It responds to user interaction in the sense that when user clicks a button the map is filled and then the data is used to do some work and then the map is no longer needed.

So my question is what's a better approach for emptying the map? should I set it to null each time or should I call clear()? I know clear is linear in time. But I don't know how to compare that cost with that of creating the map each time. The size of the map is not constant, thought it may run from n to 3n elements between creations.

Answer 1

You can use both with similar results.

One prior answer notes that clear is expected to take constant time in a mature map implementation. Without checking the source code of the likes of HashMap, TreeMap, ConcurrentHashMap, I would expect their clear method to take constant time, plus amortized garbage collection costs.

Another poster notes that a shared map cannot be nulled. Well, it can if you want it, but you do it by using a proxy object which encapsulates a proper map and nulls it out when needed. Of course, you'd have to implement the proxy map class yourself.

Map<Foo, Bar> myMap = new ProxyMap<Foo, Bar>();
    // Internally, the above object holds a reference to a proper map,
    // for example, a hash map. Furthermore, this delegates all calls
    // to the underlying map. A true proxy.
myMap.clear();
    // The clear method simply reinitializes the underlying map.

Unless you did something like the above, clear and nulling out are equivalent in the ways that matter, but I think it's more mature to assume your map, even if not currently shared, may become shared at a later time due to forces you can't foresee.

There is another reason to clear instead of nulling out, even if the map is not shared. Your map may be instantiated by an external client, like a factory, so if you clear your map by nulling it out, you might end up coupling yourself to the factory unnecessarily. Why should the object that clears the map have to know that you instantiate your maps using Guava's Maps.newHashMap() with God knows what parameters? Even if this is not a realistic concern in your project, it still pays off to align yourself to mature practices.

For the above reasons, and all else being equal, I would vote for clear.

HTH.

Answer 2

Well, it depends on how much memory you can throw at it. If you have a lot, then it doesn't matter. However, setting the map itself to null means that you have freed up the garbage collector - if only the map has references to the instances inside of it, the garbage collector can collect not only the map but also any instances inside of it. Clear does empty the map but it has to iterate over everything in the map to set each reference to null, and this takes place during your execution time that you can control - the garbage collector essentially has to do this work anyways, so let it do its thing. Just note that setting it to null doesn't let you reuse it. A typical pattern to reuse a map variable may be:

Map<String, String> whatever = new HashMap<String, String();
// .. do something with map
whatever = new HashMap<String, String>();

This allows you to reuse the variable without setting it to null at all, you silently discard the reference to the old map. This is atrocious practice in non-memory managed applications since they must reference the old pointer to clear it (this is a dangling pointer in other langauges), but in Java since nothing references this the GC marks it as eligible for collection.

Answer 3

If you always holds the map, it will be prompted to the old generation. If each user has one corresponding map, the number of map in the old generation is proportionate to the number of the user. It may trigger Full GC more frequently when the number of users increase.

Answer 4

Short answer: use Collection.clear() unless it is too complicated to keep the collection arround.

Detailed answer: In Java, the allocation of memory is almost instantaneous. It is litle more than a pointer that gets moved inside the VM. However, the initialization of those objects might add up to something significant. Also, all objects that use an internal buffer are sensible to resizing and copying of their content. Using clear() make sure that buffers eventually stabilize to some dimension, so that reallocation of memory and copying if old buffer to new buffer will never be necessary.

Another important issue is that reallocating then releasing a lot of objects will require more frequent execution of the Garbage collector, which might cause suddenly lag.

Answer 5

If a map is not referenced from other objects where it may be hard to set a new one, simply null-ing out an old map and starting from scratch is probably lighter-weight than calling a clear(), because no linear-time cleanup needs to happen. With the garbage collection costs being tiny on modern systems, there is a good chance that you would save some CPU cycles this way. You can avoid resizing the map multiple times by specifying the initial capacity.

One situation where clear() is preferred would be when the map object is shared among multiple objects in your system. For example, if you create a map, give it to several objects, and then keep some shared information in it, setting the map to a new one in all these objects may require keeping references to objects that have the map. In situations like that it's easier to keep calling clear() on the same shared map object.

Answer 6

I feel nulling the existing map is more cheaper than clear(). As creation of object is very cheap in modern JVMs.