I have a map that I use to store dynamic data that are discarded as soon as they are created (i.e. used; they are consumed quickly). It responds to user interaction in the sense that when user clicks a button the map is filled and then the data is used to do some work and then the map is no longer needed.
So my question is what's a better approach for emptying the map? should I set it to null each time or should I call clear()
? I know clear is linear in time. But I don't know how to compare that cost with that of creating the map each time. The size of the map is not constant, thought it may run from n to 3n elements between creations.
Map. clear() method in Java is used to clear and remove all of the elements or mappings from a specified Map collection. Parameters: The method does not accept any parameters. Return Value: The method does not return any value.
util. HashMap. isEmpty() method of HashMap class is used to check for the emptiness of the map. The method returns True if no key-value pair or mapping is present in the map else False.
Values entered in a map can be null .
Indeed, if a Java Map implementation allows for null values, then it is possible for the Map to return its value for the given key, but that value might be a null. Often this doesn't matter, but if it does, one can use Map. containsKey() to determine if the Map entry has a key entry.
If a map is not referenced from other objects where it may be hard to set a new one, simply null
-ing out an old map and starting from scratch is probably lighter-weight than calling a clear()
, because no linear-time cleanup needs to happen. With the garbage collection costs being tiny on modern systems, there is a good chance that you would save some CPU cycles this way. You can avoid resizing the map multiple times by specifying the initial capacity.
One situation where clear()
is preferred would be when the map object is shared among multiple objects in your system. For example, if you create a map, give it to several objects, and then keep some shared information in it, setting the map to a new one in all these objects may require keeping references to objects that have the map. In situations like that it's easier to keep calling clear()
on the same shared map object.
Well, it depends on how much memory you can throw at it. If you have a lot, then it doesn't matter. However, setting the map itself to null means that you have freed up the garbage collector - if only the map has references to the instances inside of it, the garbage collector can collect not only the map but also any instances inside of it. Clear does empty the map but it has to iterate over everything in the map to set each reference to null, and this takes place during your execution time that you can control - the garbage collector essentially has to do this work anyways, so let it do its thing. Just note that setting it to null doesn't let you reuse it. A typical pattern to reuse a map variable may be:
Map<String, String> whatever = new HashMap<String, String();
// .. do something with map
whatever = new HashMap<String, String>();
This allows you to reuse the variable without setting it to null at all, you silently discard the reference to the old map. This is atrocious practice in non-memory managed applications since they must reference the old pointer to clear it (this is a dangling pointer in other langauges), but in Java since nothing references this the GC marks it as eligible for collection.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With