CODEWITHSUNDEEP
javaarraysperformancearraylist
durron597
durron597

Reputation: 32323

Are ArrayLists more than twice as slow as arrays?

I wrote a test that attempts to test two things:

I was kind of surprised with the results

The Questions

  1. Why is ArrayList so much slower?
  2. Is my benchmark written well? In other words, are my results accurate?

The Results

 0% Scenario{vm=java, trial=0, benchmark=SmallArray} 34.57 ns; ?=0.79 ns @ 10 trials
17% Scenario{vm=java, trial=0, benchmark=SmallBoxed} 40.40 ns; ?=0.21 ns @ 3 trials
33% Scenario{vm=java, trial=0, benchmark=SmallList} 105.78 ns; ?=0.09 ns @ 3 trials
50% Scenario{vm=java, trial=0, benchmark=BigArray} 34.53 ns; ?=0.05 ns @ 3 trials
67% Scenario{vm=java, trial=0, benchmark=BigBoxed} 40.09 ns; ?=0.23 ns @ 3 trials
83% Scenario{vm=java, trial=0, benchmark=BigList} 105.91 ns; ?=0.14 ns @ 3 trials

 benchmark    ns linear runtime
SmallArray  34.6 =========
SmallBoxed  40.4 ===========
 SmallList 105.8 =============================
  BigArray  34.5 =========
  BigBoxed  40.1 ===========
   BigList 105.9 ==============================

vm: java
trial: 0

The Code

This code was written in Windows using Java 7 and Google caliper 0.5-rc1 (because last I checked 1.0 doesn't work in Windows yet).

Quick outline: in all 6 tests, in each iteration of the loop, it adds the values in the first 128 cells of the array (no matter how big the array is) and adds that to a total value. Caliper tells me how many times the test should run, so I loop through that addition 128 times.

The 6 tests have a big (131072) and a small (128) version of int[], Integer[], and ArrayList<Integer>. You can probably figure out which is which from the names.

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Random;

import com.google.caliper.Runner;
import com.google.caliper.SimpleBenchmark;

public class SpeedTest {    
    public static class TestBenchmark extends SimpleBenchmark {
        int[] bigArray = new int[131072];
        int[] smallArray = new int[128];
        Integer[] bigBoxed = new Integer[131072];
        Integer[] smallBoxed = new Integer[128];
        List<Integer> bigList = new ArrayList<>(131072);
        List<Integer> smallList = new ArrayList<>(128);

        @Override
        protected void setUp() {
            Random r = new Random();
            for(int i = 0; i < 128; i++) {
                smallArray[i] = Math.abs(r.nextInt(100));
                bigArray[i] = smallArray[i];
                smallBoxed[i] = smallArray[i];
                bigBoxed[i] = smallArray[i];
                smallList.add(smallArray[i]);
                bigList.add(smallArray[i]);
            }
        }

        public long timeBigArray(int reps) {
            long result = 0;
            for(int i = 0; i < reps; i++) {
                for(int j = 0; j < 128; j++) {
                    result += bigArray[j];
                }
            }
            return result;
        }

        public long timeSmallArray(int reps) {
            long result = 0;
            for(int i = 0; i < reps; i++) {
                for(int j = 0; j < 128; j++) {
                    result += smallArray[j];
                }
            }
            return result;
        }

        public long timeBigBoxed(int reps) {
            long result = 0;
            for(int i = 0; i < reps; i++) {
                for(int j = 0; j < 128; j++) {
                    result += bigBoxed[j];
                }
            }
            return result;
        }

        public long timeSmallBoxed(int reps) {
            long result = 0;
            for(int i = 0; i < reps; i++) {
                for(int j = 0; j < 128; j++) {
                    result += smallBoxed[j];
                }
            }
            return result;
        }

        public long timeBigList(int reps) {
            long result = 0;
            for(int i = 0; i < reps; i++) {
                for(int j = 0; j < 128; j++) {
                    result += bigList.get(j);
                }
            }
            return result;
        }

        public long timeSmallList(int reps) {
            long result = 0;
            for(int i = 0; i < reps; i++) {
                for(int j = 0; j < 128; j++) {
                    result += smallList.get(j);
                }
            }
            return result;
        }
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Runner.main(TestBenchmark.class, new String[0]);
    }
}

Upvotes: 13

Views: 6512

Answers (4)

Stephen C
Stephen C

Reputation: 718758

Firstly ...

Are ArrayLists more than twice as slow as arrays?

As a generalization, no. For operations that potentially involve "changing" the length of the list / array, an ArrayList will be faster than an array ... unless you use a separate variable to represent the array's logical size.

For other operations, the ArrayList is likely to be slower, though the performance ratio will most likely depend on the operation and the JVM implementation. Also note that you have only tested one operation / pattern.

Why is ArrayList so much slower?

Because an ArrayList has a distinct array object inside of it.

  • Operations typically involve extra indirections (e.g. to fetch the list's size and inner array) and there are extra bounds checks (e.g. checking the list's size and the array's length). A typical JIT compiler is (apparently) not able to optimize these away. (And in fact, you would NOT want to optimize away the inner array because that's what allows an ArrayList to grow.)

  • For array's of primitives, the corresponding list types involve wrapped primitive types / objects, and that adds an overhead. For example your result += ... involves unboxing, in the "list" cases.

Is my benchmark written well? In other words, are my results accurate?

There's nothing wrong with it technically. But it is not sufficient to demonstrate your point. For a start, you are only measuring one kind of operation: array element fetching and its equivalent. And you are only measuring for primitive types.

Finally, this largely misses the point of using List types. We use them because they are almost always easier to use than plain arrays. A difference in performance of (say) 2 is typically not important to overall application performance.

Upvotes: 9

Conete Cristian
Conete Cristian

Reputation: 101

If you store millions of objects, then the Add or Contains functions will be super slow. Best way is to split it using hashMap of Arrays. Although similar algorithms can be used for other types of objects, this is how I improved 1000 times faster the processing of 10 million strings (the memory taken is 2-3 times more)

public static class ArrayHashList  {
    private String temp1, temp2;
    HashMap allKeys = new HashMap();
    ArrayList curKeys;  
    private int keySize;
    public ArrayHashList(int keySize) {
        this.keySize = keySize;
    }   
    public ArrayHashList(int keySize, String fromFileName) {
        this.keySize = keySize;
        String line;
        try{
            BufferedReader br1 = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(fromFileName));        
            while ((line = br1.readLine()) != null) 
                addString(line);
            br1.close();
        }catch(Exception e){
            e.printStackTrace();
        }
    }   
    public boolean addString(String strToAdd) {  
        if (strToAdd.length()<keySize)
            temp1 = strToAdd;
        else
            temp1 = strToAdd.substring(0,keySize);
        if (!allKeys.containsKey(temp1))
            allKeys.put(temp1,new ArrayList());
        curKeys =  (ArrayList)allKeys.get(temp1);
        if (!curKeys.contains(strToAdd)){
            curKeys.add(strToAdd);
            return true;
        }
        return false;
    }
    public boolean haveString(String strCheck) { 
        if (strCheck.length()<keySize)
            temp1 = strCheck;
        else
            temp1 = strCheck.substring(0,keySize);
        if (!allKeys.containsKey(temp1))
            allKeys.put(temp1,new ArrayList());
        curKeys =  (ArrayList)allKeys.get(temp1);
        return curKeys.contains(strCheck);
    }
}

to init and use it:

ArrayHashList fullHlist = new ArrayHashList(3, filesPath+"\\allPhrases.txt");       
ArrayList pendingList = new ArrayList();
BufferedReader br1 = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(filesPath + "\\processedPhrases.txt"));
while ((line = br1.readLine()) != null) {
    wordEnc = StrUtil.GetFirstToken(line,",~~~,");
    if (!fullHlist.haveString(wordEnc))
        pendingList.add(wordEnc);
}
br1.close();

Upvotes: 0

MattPutnam
MattPutnam

Reputation: 3017

These results don't surprise me. List.get(int) involves a cast, which is slow. Java's generics are implemented via type erasure, meaning that any type of List<T> is actually a List<Object>, and the only reason you get your type out is because of a cast. The source for ArrayList looks like this:

public E get(int index) {
    rangeCheck(index);

    return elementData(index);
}
// snip...
private void rangeCheck(int index) {
    if (index >= size)
        throw new IndexOutOfBoundsException(outOfBoundsMsg(index));
}
// snip...
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
E elementData(int index) {
    return (E) elementData[index];
}

The rangeCheck and the overhead of the function calls are trivial, it's that cast to E that kills you.

Upvotes: 0

matt forsythe
matt forsythe

Reputation: 3912

Keep in mind that in using ArrayList, you are actually calling a function, which in the case of get() actually makes two other function calls. (One of which is a range check, which I suspect may be part of the delay).

The important thing with ArrayList, is not so much how much faster or slower it is compared with straight arrays, but that it's access time always constant (like arrays). In the real world, you'll almost always find that the added delay is negligible. Especially if you have an application that even thinks about connecting to a database. :)

In short, I think your test (and the results) are legit.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions