We Keep Coding

Java: What collection type should I use for this case?

What I need:
Fastest put/remove, this is used alot.
Iteration, also used frequently.
Holds an object, e.g. Player. remove should be o(1) so maybe hashmap?
No duplicate keys
direct get() is never used, mainly iterating to retrieve data.`
I don't worry about memory, I just want the fastest speed possible even if it's at the cost of memory.

For iteration, nothing is faster than a plain old array. Entries are saved sequentially in memory, so the JVM can get to the next entry simply by adding the length of one entry to the its address.
Arrays are typically a bit of a hassle to deal with compared to maps or lists (e.g: no dictionary-style lookups, fixed length). However, in your case I think it makes sense to go with a one or two dimensional array since the length of the array will not change and dictionary-style lookups are not needed.

So if I understand you correctly you want to have a two-dimensional grid that holds information of which, if any, player is in specific tiles? To me it doesn't sound like you should be removing, or adding things to the grid. I would simply use a two-dimensional array that holds type Player or something similar. Then if no player is in a tile you can set that position to null, or some static value like Player.none() or Tile.empty() or however you'd want to implement it. Either way, a simple two-dimensional array should work fine. :)

The best Collection for your case is a LinkedList. Linked lists will allow for fast iteration, and fast removal and addition at any place in the linked list. For example, if you use an ArrayList, and you can to insert something at index i, then you have to move all the elements from i to the end one entry to the right. The same would happen if you want to remove. In a linked list you can add and remove in constant time.
Since you need two dimensions, you can use linked lists inside of linked lists:
List<List<Tile> players = new LinkedList<List<Tile>>(20);
for (int i = 0; i < 20; ++i){
List<Tile> tiles = new LinkedList<Tile>(20);
for (int j = 0; j < 20; ++j){
tiles.add(new Tile());
}
players.add(tiles);
}

use a map of sets guarantee O(1) for vertices lookup and amortized O(1) complexity edge insertion and deletions.
HashMap<VertexT, HashSet<EdgeT>> incidenceMap;

There is no simple one-size-fits-all solution to this.
For example, if you only want to append, iterate and use Iterator.remove(), there are two obvious options: ArrayList and LinkedList
ArrayList uses less memory, but Iterator.remove() is O(N)
LinkedList uses more memory, but Iterator.remove() is O(1)
If you also want to do fast lookup; (e.g. Collection.contains tests), or removal using Collection.remove, then HashSet is going to be better ... if the collections are likely to be large. A HashSet won't allow you to put an object into the collection multiple times, but that could be an advantage. It also uses more memory than either ArrayList or LinkedList.
If you were more specific on the properties required, and what you are optimizing for (speed, memory use, both?) then we could give you better advice.

The requirement of not allowing duplicates is effectively adding a requirement for efficient get().
Your options are either hash-based, or O(Log(N)). Most likely, hashcode will be faster, unless for whatever reason, calling hashCode() + equals() once is much slower than calling compareTo() Log(N) times. This could be, for instance, if you're dealing with very long strings. Log(N) is not very much, by the way: Log(1,000,000,000) ~= 30.
If you want to use a hash-based data structure, then HashSet is your friend. Make sure that Player has a good fast implementation of hashCode(). If you know the number of entries ahead of time, specify the HashSet size. ( ceil(N/load_factor)+1. The default load factor is 0.75).
If you want to use a sort-based structure, implement an efficient Player.compareTo(). Your choices are TreeSet, or Skip List. They're pretty comparable in terms of characteristics. TreeSet is nice in that it's available out of the box in the JDK, whereas only a concurrent SkipList is available. Both need to be rebalanced as you add data, which may take time, and I don't know how to predict which will be better.

Java HashSet vs Array Performance

I have a collection of objects that are guaranteed to be distinct (in particular, indexed by a unique integer ID). I also know exactly how many of them there are (and the number won't change), and was wondering whether Array would have a notable performance advantage over HashSet for storing/retrieving said elements.
On paper, Array guarantees constant time insertion (since I know the size ahead of time) and retrieval, but the code for HashSet looks much cleaner and adds some flexibility, so I'm wondering if I'm losing anything performance-wise using it, at least, theoretically.

Depends on your data;
HashSet gives you an O(1) contains() method but doesn't preserve order.
ArrayList contains() is O(n) but you can control the order of the entries.
Array if you need to insert anything in between, worst case can be O(n), since you will have to move the data down and make room for the insertion. In Set, you can directly use SortedSet which too has O(n) too but with flexible operations.
I believe Set is more flexible.

The choice greatly depends on what do you want to do with it.
If it is what mentioned in your question:
I have a collection of objects that are guaranteed to be distinct (in particular, indexed by a unique integer ID). I also know exactly how many of them there are
If this is what you need to do, the you need neither of them. There is a size() method in Collection for which you can get the size of it, which mean how many of them there are in the collection.
If what you mean for "collection of object" is not really a collection, and you need to choose a type of collection to store your objects for further processing, then you need to know, for different kind of collections, there are different capabilities and characteristic.
First, I believe to have a fair comparison, you should consider using ArrayList instead Array, for which you don't need to deal with the reallocation.
Then it become the choice of ArrayList vs HashSet, which is quite straight-forward:
Do you need a List or Set? They are for different purpose: Lists provide you indexed access, and iteration is in order of index. While Sets are mainly for you to keep a distinct set of data, and given its nature, you won't have indexed access.
After you made your decision of List or Set to use, then it is a choice of List/Set implementation, normally for Lists, you choose from ArrayList and LinkedList, while for Sets, you choose between HashSet and TreeSet.
All the choice depends on what you would want to do with that collection of data. They performs differently on different action.
For example, an indexed access in ArrayList is O(1), in HashSet (though not meaningful) is O(n), (just for your interest, in LinkedList is O(n), in TreeSet is O(nlogn) )
For adding new element, both ArrayList and HashSet is O(1) operation. Inserting in the middle is O(n) for ArrayList, while it doesn't make sense in HashSet. Both will suffer from reallocation, and both of them need O(n) for the reallocation (HashSet is normally slower in reallocation, because it involve calculation of hash for each element again).
To find if certain element exists in the collection, ArrayList is O(n) and HashSet is O(1).
There are still lots of operations you can do, so it is quite meaningless to discuss for performance without knowing what you want to do.

theoretically, and as SCJP6 Study guide says :D
arrays are faster than collections, and as said, most of the collections depend mainly on arrays (Maps are not considered Collection, but they are included in the Collections framework)
if you guarantee that the size of your elements wont change, why get stuck in Objects built on Objects (Collections built on Arrays) while you can use the root objects directly (arrays)

It looks like you will want an HashMap that maps id's to counts. Particularly,
HashMap<Integer,Integer> counts=new HashMap<Integer,Integer>();
counts.put(uniqueID,counts.get(uniqueID)+1);
This way, you get amortized O(1) adds, contains and retrievals. Essentially, an array with unique id's associated with each object IS a HashMap. By using the HashMap, you get the added bonus of not having to manage the size of the array, not having to map the keys to an array index yourself AND constant access time.

Java /Android what is faster than ArrayList?

What is faster than ArrayList<String> in Java ? I have a list which is of an undefined length. (sometimes 4 items, sometimes 100).
What is the FASTEST way to add and get it from any list ? arrayList.add(string) and get() are very slow.
Is there a better way for this? (string s[] and then copyArray are the slowest?)

Faster for what?
"basically arraylist.add(string) and get() is very slow." - based on what evidence? And compared to what? (No need for the word 'basically' here - it's a high tech "um".) I doubt that ArrayList is the issue with your app. Profiling your code is the only way to tell whether or not you're just guessing and grasping at straws.
Even an algorithm that's O(n^2) is likely to be adequate if the data set is small.
You have to understand the Big-Oh behavior of different data structures to answer this question. Adding to the end of an ArrayList is pretty fast, unless you have to resize it. Adding in the middle may take longer.
LinkedList will be faster to add in the middle, but you'll have to iterate to get to a particular element.

Both add() to end of list and get() should run in O(1). And since length is undefined, you can't use a fixed length array. You can't do any better I'm afraid.
add(int index, E element) takes linear time for worst case though if that's why you think it's slow. If that is the case, either use Hashtable (insertion takes constant time) or TreeMap (insertion takes logarithmic time).

100 items is not very many. Your bottleneck is elsewhere.

Take a look the Jodd Utilities. They have some collections that implement ArrayList but on primatives (jodd/util/collection/), such as IntArrayList. So if you're creating a ArrayList of int, float, double, etc.. it will be faster and consume less memory.
Even faster than that is what they call a FastBuffer, which excels at add() and can provide a get() at O(1).
The classes have little interdependency, so it's easy to just drop in the class you need into your code.

You can use javolution library. http://javolution.org
http://javolution.org/target/site/apidocs/javolution/util/FastList.html
ist much faster than arraylist ;)

Try to use hashtable it is much faster

What is the fastest Java collection with the basic functionality of a Queue?

What is the fastest collection in Java?
I only need the operations to add and remove, order is not important, equals elements is not a issue, nothing more than add and remove is imporant.
Without limit size is important too.
These collection will have Objects inside him.
Currently I'm using ArrayDeque because I see this is the faster Queue implementation.

ArrayDeque is best. See this benchmark, which comes from this blog post about the results of benchmarking this. ArrayDeque doesn't have the overhead of node allocations that LinkedList does nor the overhead of shifting the array contents left on remove that ArrayList has. In the benchmark, it performs about 3x as well as LinkedList for large queues and even slightly better than ArrayList for empty queues. For best performance, you'll probably want to give it an initial capacity large enough to hold the number of elements it's likely to hold at a time to avoid many resizes.
Between ArrayList and LinkedList, it seems that it depends on the average number of total elements the queue will contain at any given time and that LinkedList beats ArrayList starting at about 10 elements.

You can use a java.util.LinkedList - it's doubly-linked and cicrular, so adding to one end and taking from the other are O(1)
Whatever implementation you choose, refer to it by the Queue interface, so that you can easily change it if it turns out not to fit your case (if, of course, a queue is what you need in the first place)
Update: Colin's answer shows a benchmark that concludes that ArrayDeque is better. Both have O(1) operations, but LinkedList creates new objects (nodes), which slightly affect performance. Since both have O(1) I don't think it would be too wrong to choose LinkedList though.

ConcurrentLinkedDeque is the best choice for multi thread Queue

Best way to remove and add elements from the java List

I have 100,000 objects in the list .I want to remove few elements from the list based on condition.Can anyone tell me what is the best approach to achieve interms of memory and performance.
Same question for adding objects also based on condition.
Thanks in Advance
Raju

Your container is not just a List. List is an interface that can be implemented by, for example ArrayList and LinkedList. The performance will depend on which of these underlying classes is actually instantiated for the object you are polymorphically referring to as List.
ArrayList can access elements in the middle of the list quickly, but if you delete one of them you need to shift a whole bunch of elements. LinkedList is the opposite i nthis respect., requiring iteration for the access but deletion is just a matter of reassigning pointers.
Your performance depends on the implementation of List, and the best choice of implementation depends on how you will be using the List and which operations are most frequent.

If you're going to be iterating a list and applying tests to each element, then a LinkedList will be most efficient in terms of CPU time, because you don't have to shift any elements in the list. It will, however consume more memory than an ArrayList, because each list element is actually held in an entry.
However, it might not matter. 100,000 is a small number, and if you aren't removing a lot of elements the cost to shift an ArrayList will be low. And if you are removing a lot of elements, it's probably better to restructure as a copy-with filter.
However, the only real way to know is to write the code and benchmark it.

Collections2.filter (from Guava) produces a filtered collection based on a predicate.
List<Number> myNumbers = Arrays.asList(Integer.valueOf(1), Double.valueOf(1e6));
Collection<Number> bigNumbers = Collections2.filter(
myNumbers,
new Predicate<Number>() {
public boolean apply(Number n) {
return n.doubleValue() >= 100d;
}
});
Note, that some operations like size() are not efficient with this scheme. If you tend to follow Josh Bloch's advice and prefer isEmpty() and iterators to unnecessary size() checks, then this shouldn't bite you in practice.

LinkedList could be a good choice.
LinkedList does "remove and add elements" more effective than ArrayList. and no need to call such method as ArrayList.trimToSize() to remove useless memory. But LinkedList is a dual-linked list, each element is wrapped as an Entry which needs extra memory.