I'm writing an array-backed hashtable in Java, where the type of key and value are Object; no other guarantee.
The easiest way for me code-wise is to create an object to hold them:
public class Pair {
public Object key;
public Object value;
}
And then create an array
public Pair[] storage = new Pair[8];
But how does the jvm treat that in memory? Which is to say, will the array actually:
be an array of pointers to Pair() objects sitting elsewhere, or
contain the actual data?
edit
Since the objects are instantiated later as new Pair(), they're randomly placed in the heap. Is there any good way to ensure they're sequential in the heap? Would I need to do some trickery with sun.misc.unsafe to make that work?
Explaining my motivation, if I want to try and ensure that sequential items are in the same page of memory, is there any way to do this in Java?
The array will be an object on the heap containing pointers to the Pair objects which will also be on the heap (but separate from the array itself).
No, the storage array will only contain pointers to the actual Pair objects existing somewhere else on the heap. Yet, remember to instantiate 8 Pair objects and make each element of the array point to these objects. You need to have something like this after the code that you have written:
for(int i=0;i<storage.length;i++)
storage[i] = new Pair() ;
Only then will the Pair objects be created and correctly referred to by the storage array.
Related
Since interfaces only specify methods and not instance variables, how is storage allotted to something like:
Comparable[] aux = new Comparable[20];
How much per location storage (i.e. not counting array overhead) will be allocated?
The array is only allocating enough contiguous memory for the pointers to the objects, it doesn't need to allocate memory for the actual objects itself.
We can sometimes forget, Java still uses "pointers" (aka references), it just doesn't provide the same level of access to those pointers that other languages do
Objects are reference types, therefore every Object subtypes (including Comparator and every other interface) are reference types. It means that the size of every array item is the size of an object reference. It doesn't make a difference what kind of object it is.
I want to know why an array created in Java static even when we use the new keyword to define it.
From what I've read, the new keyword allocates a memory space in the heap whenever it is encountered during run time, so why give the size of the array at all during definition.
e.g. Why can't
int[] array1=new int[20];
simply be:
int[] array1=new int[];
I know that it does not grow automatically and we have ArrayList for that but then what is the use of keyword new in this? It could have been defined as int array1[20]; like we used to do it in C, C++ if it has to be static.
P.S. I know this is an amateurish question but I am an amateur, I tried to Google but couldn't find anything comprehensive.
This may be an amateurish question, but it is one of the best amateurish questions you could make.
In order for java to allow you to declare arrays without new, it would have to support an additional kind of data type, which would behave like a primitive in the sense that it would not require allocation, but it would be very much unlike a primitive in the sense that it would be of variable size. That would have immensely complicated the compiler and the JVM.
The approach taken by java is to provide the bare minimum and sufficient primitives in order to be able to get most things done efficiently, and let everything else be done using objects. That's why arrays are objects.
Also, you might be a bit confused about the meaning of "static" here. In C, "static" means "of file scope", that is, not visible by other object files. In C++ and in Java, "static" means "belongs to the class" rather than "belongs to instances of the class". So, the term "static" is not suitable for describing array allocation. "Fixed size" or "fixed, predefined size" would be more suitable terms.
Well, in Java everything is an object, including arrays (they have length and other data). Thats why you cannot use
int var[20];
In java that would be an int and the compiler would be confused. Instead by using this:
int[] var;
You are declaring that var is of type int[] (int array) so Java understands it.
Also in java the length of the array and other data are saved on the array, for this reason you don't have to declare size of array during declaration, instead when creating an array (using new) the data are saved.
Maybe there is a better reason that oracle may have answered already, but the fact that in Java everything is an object must have something to do with it. Java is quite specific about objects and types, unlike C where you have more freedom but everything is more loose (especially using pointers).
The main idea of the array data structure is that all its elements are located in the sequential row of memory cells. That is why you can not create array with variable size: it should be unbounbed space vector in memory for this purpose, which is impossible.
If you want change size of array, you should recreate it.
Since arrays are fixed-size they need to know how much memory to allocate at the time they are instantiated.
ArrayLists or other resizing data structures that internally use arrays to store data actually re-allocate larger arrays when their inner array data
structure fills up.
My understanding of OP's reasoning is:
new is used for allocating dynamic objects (which can grow like, ArrayList), but arrays are static (can't grow). So one of them is unnecessary: the new or the size of the array.
If that is the question, then the answer is simple:
Well, in Java new is necessary for every Object allocation, because in Java all objects are dynamically allocated.
Turns out that in Java, arrays are objects, different from C/C++ where they are not.
All of Java's variables are at most a single 64bit field. Either primitives like
integer (32bit)
long (64bit)
...
or references to Objects which depending on JVM / config / OS are 64 or 32 bit fields (but unlike 64bit primitives with atomicity guaranteed).
There is no such thing as C's int[20] "type". Neither is there C's static.
What int[] array = new int[20] boils down to is roughly
int* array = malloc(20 * sizeof(java_int))
Each time you see new in Java you can imagine a malloc and a call to the constructor method in case it's a real Object (not just an array). Each Object is more or less just a struct of a few primitives and more pointers.
The result is a giant network of relatively small structs pointing to other things. And the garbage collector's task is to free all the leaves that have fallen off the network.
And this is also the reason why you can say Java is copy by value: both primitives and pointers are always copied.
regarding static in Java: there is conceptually a struct per class that represents the static context of a class. That's the place where static instance variables are anchored. Non-static instance variables are anchored at with their own instance-struct
class Car {
static int[] forAllCars = new int[20];
Object perCar;
}
...
new Car();
translates very loosely (my C is terrible) to
struct Car-Static {
Object* forAllCars;
};
struct Car-Instance {
Object* perCar;
};
// .. class load time. Happens once and this is referenced from some root object so it can't get garbage collected
struct Car-Static *car_class = (struct Car-Static*) malloc(sizeof(Car-Static));
car_class->forAllCars = malloc(20 * 4);
// .. for every new Car();
struct Car-Instance *new_reference = (struct Car-Instance*) malloc(sizeof(Car-Instance));
new_reference.perCar = NULL; // all things get 0'd
new_reference->constructor();
// "new" essentially returns the "new_reference" then
Suppose I have the following code in java
Object object = new Object();
mylist.add(object);
mylist2.add(object);
As far as I understand I have created one object in memory and both mylist and mylist2 have some kind reference to this object. Is that correct?
In which case how much more memory does the program above use compared to if I had just done
Object object = new Object();
mylist.add(object);
I'm wondering because I sometimes feel it would be useful to have two different data structures holding the same information for different purposes.
Ex:
A binary tree and a hash map such that you can easily search for objects in constant time and easily iterate through an ordered list of the objects.
It depends on what type of list you use. If you use an ArrayList, then there is no overhead for each entry except the reference itself (4 bytes on a 32 bit machine, ignoring the empty space in this kind of list ;)). If you use for example a LinkedList then there is a wrapper object around it, which additionally holds a reference to the previous/next element in the list.
On most VMs the size of a reference is the native pointer size (from John Skeet)
So if you use a 32bit VM e.g. it will be 4 bytes.
I want to improve my knowledge about memory model of programming languages (particulary in Java), so I have one question.
Here is very simple code:
// Allocating memory in heap for SimpleObject's instance
// Creating reference to this object with name so1
SimpleObject so1 = new SimpleObject();
// Allocating memory in heap for array of 10 references to SimpleObject's objects
// Now I know, that array stores only references to the objects
// (Previously I thought that array stores objects)
// Then we create reference to this array with name soArray
SimpleObject[] soArray = new SimpleObject[10];
Now the question:
// What is going on here?
soArray[0] = so1;
// object so1 had been really moved to memory area of soArray?
// And so1 reference have been updated to new memory address?
// Or we just had assigned so1 object's reference to soArray[0] element?
// Or so1 object had been copied to the soArray[0]?
// Then original so1 object has been deleted and all links to it had been updated?
If you know, how it works in other languages, such as (C, C++, C# or other), please answer, I will be glad to know it.
Everybody know, that ArrayList can be faster than LinkedList, because elements of array could be stored in CPU cache, while if we working with LinkedList, CPU has to get next object from RAM each time.
So how could it work, if at first I had created object in heap and only then I had put object in array?
UPD: Thank you guys, now I understand how array is working, but what about caching array in CPU cache in that way?
Arrays store references to objects, not the objects themselves. You therefore swap the reference at position 0 when assigning soArray[0]. The objects themselved can be moved within the heap, but this is usually due to GC, not assignments.
If the objects themselves were stored directly in the array, you could not have instances of subclasses with more instance fields in your array. They would not fit into the allocated space and therefore only become instances of the base class. This is what actually happens in C++ when you assign class instances stored on the stack.
In Java, arrays store references to objects. In C++ parlance they store pointers to objects.
SimpleObject[] soArray = new SimpleObject[10]; //Java
SimpleObject* cppArray[10]; // C++ equivalent
soArray[0] = so1; puts a reference to so1 in soArray[0] in the same way that cppArray[0] = &so1 stores a pointer to so1. The original object remains unchanged, no additional memory is allocated or deallocated.
In C++ you can store the objects directly in an array.
SimpleObject soArray[10]; // An array that stores Simple Objects in place
SimpleObject so1; // A new object
soArray[0] = so1; // This *copies* so1 into soArray[0]
We assign the reference to the object pointed by so1 to the array element.
Here's an example in using Python Tutor (there's no equivalent tool for Java that I know, but the memory model is similar, except for the Class being an object, so ignore that):
In Java, we can always use an array to store object reference. Then we have an ArrayList or HashTable which is automatically expandable to store objects. But does anyone know a native way to have an auto-expandable array of object references?
Edit: What I mean is I want to know if the Java API has some class with the ability to store references to objects (but not storing the actual object like XXXList or HashTable do) AND the ability of auto-expansion.
Java arrays are, by their definition, fixed size. If you need auto-growth, you use XXXList classes.
EDIT - question has been clarified a bit
When I was first starting to learn Java (coming from a C and C++ background), this was probably one of the first things that tripped me up. Hopefully I can shed some light.
Unlike C++, Object arrays in Java do not store objects. They store object references.
In C++, if you declared something similar to:
String myStrings[10];
You would get 10 String objects. At this point, it would be perfectly legal to do something like println(myStrings[5].length); - you'd get '0' - the default constructor for String creates an empty string with length 0.
In Java, when you construct a new array, you get an empty container that can hold 10 String references. So the call:
String[] myStrings = new String[10];
println(myStringsp[5].length);
would throw a null pointer exception, because you haven't actually placed a String reference into the array yet.
If you are coming from a C++ background, think of new String[10] as being equivalent to new (String *)[10] from C++.
So, with that in mind, it should be fairly clear why ArrayList is the solution for an auto expanding array of objects (and in fact, ArrayList is implemented using simple arrays, with a growth algorithm built in that allocates new expanded arrays as needed and copies the content from the old to the new).
In practice, there are actually relatively few situations where we use arrays. If you are writing a container (something akin to ArrayList, or a BTree), then they are useful, or if you are doing a lot of low level byte manipulation - but at the level that most development occurs, using one of the Collections classes is by far the preferred technique.
All the classes implementing Collection are expandable and store only references: you don't store objects, you create them in some data space and only manipulate references to them, until they go out of scope without reference on them.
You can put a reference to an object in two or more Collections. That's how you can have sorted hash tables and such...
What do you mean by "native" way? If you want an expandable list f objects then you can use the ArrayList. With List collections you have the get(index) method that allows you to access objects in the list by index which gives you similar functionality to an array. Internally the ArrayList is implemented with an array and the ArrayList handles expanding it automatically for you.
Straight from the Array Java Tutorials on the sun webpage:
-> An array is a container object that holds a fixed number of values of a single type.
Because the size of the array is declared when it is created, there is actually no way to expand it afterwards. The whole purpose of declaring an array of a certain size is to only allocate as much memory as will likely be used when the program is executed. What you could do is declare a second array that is a function based on the size of the original, copy all of the original elements into it, and then add the necessary new elements (although this isn't very 'automatic' :) ). Otherwise, as you and a few others have mentioned, the List Collections is the most efficient way to go.
In Java, all object variables are references. So
Foo myFoo = new Foo();
Foo anotherFoo = myFoo;
means that both variables are referring to the same object, not to two separate copies. Likewise, when you put an object in a Collection, you are only storing a reference to the object. Therefore using ArrayList or similar is the correct way to have an automatically expanding piece of storage.
There's no first-class language construct that does that that I'm aware of, if that's what you're looking for.
It's not very efficient, but if you're just appending to an array, you can use Apache Commons ArrayUtils.add(). It returns a copy of the original array with the additional element in it.
if you can write your code in javascript, yes, you can do that. javascript arrays are sparse arrays. it will expand whichever way you want.
you can write
a[0] = 4;
a[1000] = 434;
a[888] = "a string";