Reputation: 845
I recently had the task of performing a cross-selection operation on some collections, to find an output collection that was matching my criteria. (I will omit the custom logic because it is not needed).
What I did was creating a class that was taking as a parameter List
s of elements, and I was then calling a function inside that class that was responsible for processing those lists of data and returning a value.
Point is, I'm convinced I'm not doing the right thing, because writing a class holding hundreds of elements, taking names lists as parameters, and returning another collection looks unconventional and awkward.
Is there a specific programming object or paradigm that allows you to process large numbers of large collections, maybe with a quite heavy custom selection/mapping logic?
I'm building for Android using Kotlin
Upvotes: 0
Views: 646
Reputation: 3689
First of all, when we talk about the performance, there is only one right answer - write benchmark and test.
About memory: list with 1,000,000 of unique String
s with average size 30 chars will take about 120 Mb (e.g. 10^6 * 30 * 4, where last is "size of char", let's think that this is Unicode character with 4 bytes). And please add 1-3% for collateral expenses, such as link references. Therefore: if you have hundreds of String
s then just load whole data into memory and use list, because this is the fastest solution (synchronous, immutable, etc.).
If you can do streaming-like operations, you can use sequences. They are pretty lazy, the same with Java Streams and .Net Linq. Please check example below, it requires small amount of memory.
fun countOfEqualLinesOnTheSamePositions(path1: String, path2: String): Flow<String> {
return File(path1).useLines { lines1 ->
File(path2).useLines { lines2 ->
lines1.zip(lines2)
.map { (line1, line2) ->
line1 == line2
}
.count()
}
}
}
If you couldn't store whole data in memory and you couldn't work with stream-like schema, you may:
For additional optimizations:
ByteBuffer
s, instead of String
s. You can get much less allocation (because you can deallocate object explicitly), however code will be too complex.Upvotes: 2