In Java, to unload an object from the heap, is it sufficient to simply write myObject = null; and the GC will take care of it from there?
EDIT : Ok let me explain my use case, since everyone is assuming that I shouldn't explicitly null objects, I shouldn't worry about it, etc. That's missing the point. I am serializing an object, and am "consuming" a field of this object before I serialize it in order to save disk space. And before you jump down my throat for this, too, I cannot declare this field transient because I am including this field in the object sometimes, but not others.
Does setting an object to null have any effect on the GC?
In some modern VMs, actively setting a reference to null hinders the garbage collector. You should just forget about that.
For knowing when an object is garbage collected, look at the java.lang.ref package - although I can honestly say that in 16 years of Java programming, I've never needed to know when an object is garbage collected.
Can you elaborate on why you think you need this?
No; all references to that object must be lost/nulled. In practice this is something you shouldn't worry about.
Your object will be de-allocated when it is no longer used. Just be aware that any references left to the object will keep the object on the heap and simply assigning null to any single reference will not cause the underlying object to magically go away.
No, and no. myObject = null; will only help if there are no other references to the object, and in most cases it's superfluous because local objects go out of scope at the end of each method.
As for when objects are actually deallocated, that's completely up to the GC. What you can do is add a finalize method that will be called just before the object is deallocated, but this is problematic as well and should not be relied on.
Related
I have some objects in my code which are not invoked in everyloop,But they are useful in future when some forced termination from loop,unpredictable error etc happens, So how to make sure that this objects are not ever collected by garbage collector.
For example : I have one class so I dont want GC to perform any Garbage collection on this class
If the objects are valuable and expensive to create, you should hang on to them in a field in your class. You could create a Map that would act sort of like a cache and grab them out of the Map when you're ready to use them again.
If they are useful in the future you have a reference to these objects somewhere. This is enough to ensure that they will never be garbage collected.
Keep a strong reference to the object, Doing this will always ensure that your object will not be GCed. I would also leave such things to the Garbage collector which I think is smarter than us(with all due respect) when it comes to memory management
You should have a look at the scope of your variables. as long as they are in scope they should not be garbage collected.
Garbage Collector Simply Avoids The Object Which Have Any Reference In The Code Further. So If You Want Any Object To Never Get Collected By G.C. Until The Execution Of Your Code. Just Have A Global Reference To That Object.
I create a java object to query data from database. After I get the results and process then I no longer need the object. I also do not set the object reference to null in my code. Will Garbage collector considers this object for clean up? If the Garbage Collector do not clean up will this scenario create any kind of memory leak in the system?
We cannot tell with this much information.
If you have created a local variable, used it, and not done anything else with it, then it will be available for garbage collection as soon as it goes out of scope. If it's a variable within a method, for instance, then once the method returns, its reference is no longer counted as active by the garbage collector. (You could, of course, have another reference to the same object somewhere else).
If, on the other hand, you have an instance variable, then it will hold on to its object as long as that instance of that object is active. And, of course, if you have stored the reference in a static variable, then it is likely to just stay around as long as the program runs.
If I have a reference pointing to some some java object, and do something like:
myObject=null;
Will the "lost data" of the old object be correctly freed by the JVM Garbage Collector? Something similar in C (with a pointer, would result in trash and a possible memory leak).
I am using null attribution in a java program and would like to now if it is "safe".
If myObject only holds memory ( say large internal array ), then setting this reference to null is enough.
If, on the other hand, it holds some other kind of resource that you've allocated ( Closeable, Thread, ExecutorService, etc ), you must take care to properly shut down these resources.
Even though some of them may have finalize method they may be called too late ( or even never ) for your system to have a desirable effect.
It is a very common mistake for somebody switching from C++ to Java, and I am guilty as charged here. In my first real Java project I would periodically run out of file handle, because I was not calling close after being done with them. Needless to say with a 512MB heap, GC would never feel the need to start finalizing my IO objects before it was too late.
Assuming that there are no other references to the object, this is a good way to free memory up for the GC. (Actually, aside from weak references and the like, it's basically the only way: make the object unreachable from any live variables.) Note that there is no schedule for when an object might get garbage collected once it becomes unreachable.
EDIT: As others have pointed out, setting myObject to null is unnecessary if myObject is going out of scope anyway. When the variable itself is no longer available as a path to reach the object it references, then it doesn't matter to the GC system whether or not it contains a reference or null.
Your assumption is correct, but you don't usually need to specifically do that.
Let's say your "myObject" is used in another object. At some point in the lifetime of your application's execution, this object will stopped being referenced by any other object, and thus will be marked for deletion by the GC. Them myObject will be marked for deletion as well. As soon as all references to a given object disappear, the GC will eventually reclaim the memory.
There are (rare) exceptions, like event handling, where the dependency between two objects cannot be properly automatically ended, and you may end up with a memory leak: when you subscribe to an event on another class, then the subscriber cannot be collected even when there's no "direct" references to it. In that specific case, it might be interesting to clear the link manually.
Yes, that is the purpose of the garbage collector in the JVM. The JVM may at some later time call the finalize method of the object, and then it may discard the associated storage.
Yes, it's sometimes a GOOD idea to set Java object references (pointers) null. This may (if there are no other references to the object) "free" the object sooner than would otherwise occur. This is especially helpful when you have large "networks" of intertwined objects.
At worst case, you're costing one additional memory store.
Yes, The object the reference pointed to is eligible for garbage collection (if there are no other live references to the object) when:
The method returns - if it was initially created with method local scope
Immediately - if it is an instance or class variable
Do you always assign null to an object after its scope has been reached?
Or do you rely on the JVM for garbage collection?
Do you do it for all sort of applications regardless of their length?
If so, is it always a good practice?
It's not necessary to explicitly mark objects as null unless you have a very specific reason. Furthermore, I've never seen an application that marks all objects as null when they are no longer needed. The main benefit of garbage collection is the intrinsic memory management.
no, don't do that, except for specific cases such as static fields or when you know a variable/field lives a lot longer than the code referencing it
yes, but with a working knowledge of your VM's limits (and how to cause blocks of memory to be held accidentally)
n/a
I declare almost all of my variables as "final". I also make my methods small and declare most variables local to methods.
Since they are final I cannot assign them null after use... but that is fine since the methods are small the objects are eligible for garbage collection once they return. Since most of the variables are local there is less chance of accidentally holding onto a reference for longer than needed (memory leak).
Assignin null to a variable does not implicitly mean it will be garbage collected right away. In fact it most likely won't be. Whether you practice setting variables to null is usually only cosmetic (with the exception of static variables)
We don't practice this assigning "null". If a variable's scope has reached it's end it should already be ready for GC. There may be some edge cases in which the scope lasts for a while longer due to a long running operation in which case it might make sense to set it to null, but I would imagine they would be rare.
It also goes without saying that if the variable is an object's member variable or a static variable and hence never really goes out of scope then setting it to null to GC is mandatory.
Garbage collection is not as magical as you might expect. As long as an object is referenced from any reachable object it simply can't be collected. So it might be absolutely necessary to null a reference in order to avoid memory leaks. I don't say you should do this always, but always when it's necessary.
As the others have mentioned, it's not usually necessary.
Not only that, but it clutters up your code and increases the data someone needs to read and understand when revisiting your code.
Assigning is not done to objects, it is done to variables, and it means that this variable then holds a reference to some object. Assigning NULL to a variable is not a way to destroy an object, it just clears one reference. If the variable you are clearing will leave its scope afterwards anyway, assigning NULL is just useless noise, because that happens on leaving scope in any case.
The one time I tend to use this practice is if I need to transform a large Collection in some early part of a method.
For example:
public void foo() {
List<? extends Trade> trades = loadTrades();
Map<Date, List<? extends Trade>> tradesByDate = groupTradesByDate(trades);
trades = null; // trades no longer required.
// Apply business logic to tradesByDate map.
}
Obviously I could reduce the need for this by refactoring this into another method: Map<Date, List<? extends Trade>>> loadTradesAndGroupByDate() so it really depends on circumstances / clarity of code.
I only assign a reference to null when:
The code really lies in a memory-critical part.
The reference has a wide scope (and must be reused later). If it is not the case I just declare it in the smallest possible code block. It will be available for collection automatically.
That means that I only use this technique in iterative process where I use the reference to store incoming huge collection of objects. After processing, I do not need the collection any more but I want to reuse the reference for the next collection.
In that case (and only in that case), I then call System.gc() to give a hint to the Garbage Collector. I monitored this technique through heap visualizer and it works very well for big collections (more then 500Mb of data).
When using the .Net I don't think there's a need to set the object to null. Just let the garbage collection happen.
- Do you always assign null to an object after its scope has been reached?
No
- Or do you rely on the JVM for garbage collection?
Yes
- Do you do it for all sort of applications regardless of their length?
Yes
- If so, is it always a good practice?
N/A
I assume you're asking this question because you've seen code with variables being assigned to null at the point where they will never be accessed again.
I dislike this style, but another programmer used it extensively, and said he was taught to do so at a programming course at his university. The reasoning he gave is that it would prevent undetectable bugs if he tried to reuse the variable later on, instead of indeterminate behavior, he'd get a null pointer exception.
So if you're prone to using variables where you shouldn't be using variables, it might make your code more easy to debug.
There was a class of memory leak bugs that happened regardless of whether I set the reference to null - if the library I was using was written in a language like C without memory management, then simply setting the object to null would not necessarily free the memory. We had to call the object's close() method to release the memory (which, of course, we couldn't do after setting it to null.)
It thus seems to me that the de facto method of memory management in java is to rely on the garbage collector unless the object/library you're using has a close() method (or something similar.)
I was browsing some old books and found a copy of "Practical Java" by Peter Hagger. In the performance section, there is a recommendation to set object references to null when no longer needed.
In Java, does setting object references to null improve performance or garbage collection efficiency? If so, in what cases is this an issue? Container classes? Object composition? Anonymous inner classes?
I see this in code pretty often. Is this now obsolete programming advice or is it still useful?
It depends a bit on when you were thinking of nulling the reference.
If you have an object chain A->B->C, then once A is not reachable, A, B and C will all be eligible for garbage collection (assuming nothing else is referring to either B or C). There's no need, and never has been any need, to explicitly set references A->B or B->C to null, for example.
Apart from that, most of the time the issue doesn't really arise, because in reality you're dealing with objects in collections. You should generally always be thinking of removing objects from lists, maps etc by calling the appropiate remove() method.
The case where there used to be some advice to set references to null was specifically in a long scope where a memory-intensive object ceased to be used partway through the scope. For example:
{
BigObject obj = ...
doSomethingWith(obj);
obj = null; <-- explicitly set to null
doSomethingElse();
}
The rationale here was that because obj is still in scope, then without the explicit nulling of the reference, it does not become garbage collectable until after the doSomethingElse() method completes. And this is the advice that probably no longer holds on modern JVMs: it turns out that the JIT compiler can work out at what point a given local object reference is no longer used.
No, it's not obsolete advice. Dangling references are still a problem, especially if you're, say, implementing an expandable array container (ArrayList or the like) using a pre-allocated array. Elements beyond the "logical" size of the list should be nulled out, or else they won't be freed.
See Effective Java 2nd ed, Item 6: Eliminate Obsolete Object References.
Instance fields, array elements
If there is a reference to an object, it cannot be garbage collected. Especially if that object (and the whole graph behind it) is big, there is only one reference that is stopping garbage collection, and that reference is not really needed anymore, that is an unfortunate situation.
Pathological cases are the object that retains an unnessary instance to the whole XML DOM tree that was used to configure it, the MBean that was not unregistered, or the single reference to an object from an undeployed web application that prevents a whole classloader from being unloaded.
So unless you are sure that the object that holds the reference itself will be garbage collected anyway (or even then), you should null out everything that you no longer need.
Scoped variables:
If you are considering setting a local variable to null before the end of its scope , so that it can be reclaimed by the garbage collector and to mark it as "unusable from now on", you should consider putting it in a more limited scope instead.
{
BigObject obj = ...
doSomethingWith(obj);
obj = null; // <-- explicitly set to null
doSomethingElse();
}
becomes
{
{
BigObject obj = ...
doSomethingWith(obj);
} // <-- obj goes out of scope
doSomethingElse();
}
Long, flat scopes are generally bad for legibility of the code, too. Introducing private methods to break things up just for that purpose is not unheard of, too.
In memory restrictive environments (e.g. cellphones) this can be useful. By setting null, the objetc don't need to wait the variable to get out of scope to be gc'd.
For the everyday programming, however, this shouldn't be the rule, except in special cases like the one Chris Jester-Young cited.
Firstly, It does not mean anything that you are setting a object to null. I explain it below:
List list1 = new ArrayList();
List list2 = list1;
In above code segment we are creating the object reference variable name list1 of ArrayList object that is stored in the memory. So list1 is referring that object and it nothing more than a variable. And in the second line of code we are copying the reference of list1 to list2. So now going back to your question if I do:
list1 = null;
that means list1 is no longer referring any object that is stored in the memory so list2 will also having nothing to refer. So if you check the size of list2:
list2.size(); //it gives you 0
So here the concept of garbage collector arrives which says «you nothing to worry about freeing the memory that is hold by the object, I will do that when I find that it will no longer used in program and JVM will manage me.»
I hope it clear the concept.
One of the reasons to do so is to eliminate obsolete object references.
You can read the text here.