If method argument is a primitive int, then myArrayList.contains(primitiveArg) within a loop within a method...
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have code like this:
public int getDistanceToNumber(int number) {
List<Integer> tuple5 = null;
int distanceCounter = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < allDraws.size(); i++) {
tuple5 = allDraws.get(i).getTupleAsList();
if (tuple5.contains(number)) { // autoboxing primitive ?
}
}
return 0;
}
The question is - shall I make method argument Integer like int getDistanceToNumber(Integer number) for autoboxing from primitive into Integer to happen only once, or there is no performance issue.
This piece of code inside loop runs over 100K times...
java performance autoboxing
asked Nov 11 at 19:33
caasdads
1327
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have code like this:
public int getDistanceToNumber(int number) {
List<Integer> tuple5 = null;
int distanceCounter = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < allDraws.size(); i++) {
tuple5 = allDraws.get(i).getTupleAsList();
if (tuple5.contains(number)) { // autoboxing primitive ?
}
}
return 0;
}
The question is - shall I make method argument Integer like int getDistanceToNumber(Integer number) for autoboxing from primitive into Integer to happen only once, or there is no performance issue.
This piece of code inside loop runs over 100K times...
java performance autoboxing
asked Nov 11 at 19:33
caasdads
1327
Did you look at the generated bytecode and/or perform benchmarks?
– UnholySheep
Nov 11 at 19:35
Have you benchmarked this with JMH and determined that it's in need of optimization?
– Jacob G.
Nov 11 at 19:35
2
Don't change the method signature. Instead, you can create a local variable with the boxedintvalue. As for performance, the sequential search of theListis more of a problem. However, as others have suggested, don't micro-optimize the code without first analyzing the code by profiling it.
– Andreas
Nov 11 at 19:36
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have code like this:
public int getDistanceToNumber(int number) {
List<Integer> tuple5 = null;
int distanceCounter = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < allDraws.size(); i++) {
tuple5 = allDraws.get(i).getTupleAsList();
if (tuple5.contains(number)) { // autoboxing primitive ?
}
}
return 0;
}
The question is - shall I make method argument Integer like int getDistanceToNumber(Integer number) for autoboxing from primitive into Integer to happen only once, or there is no performance issue.
This piece of code inside loop runs over 100K times...
java performance autoboxing
asked Nov 11 at 19:33
caasdads
1327
I have code like this:
public int getDistanceToNumber(int number) {
List<Integer> tuple5 = null;
int distanceCounter = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < allDraws.size(); i++) {
tuple5 = allDraws.get(i).getTupleAsList();
if (tuple5.contains(number)) { // autoboxing primitive ?
}
}
return 0;
}
The question is - shall I make method argument Integer like int getDistanceToNumber(Integer number) for autoboxing from primitive into Integer to happen only once, or there is no performance issue.
This piece of code inside loop runs over 100K times...
java performance autoboxing
java performance autoboxing
asked Nov 11 at 19:33
caasdads
1327
asked Nov 11 at 19:33
caasdads
1327
asked Nov 11 at 19:33
caasdads
1327
asked Nov 11 at 19:33
caasdads
1327
asked Nov 11 at 19:33
caasdads
1327
1327
Did you look at the generated bytecode and/or perform benchmarks?
– UnholySheep
Nov 11 at 19:35
Have you benchmarked this with JMH and determined that it's in need of optimization?
– Jacob G.
Nov 11 at 19:35
2
Don't change the method signature. Instead, you can create a local variable with the boxedintvalue. As for performance, the sequential search of theListis more of a problem. However, as others have suggested, don't micro-optimize the code without first analyzing the code by profiling it.
– Andreas
Nov 11 at 19:36
add a comment |
Did you look at the generated bytecode and/or perform benchmarks?
– UnholySheep
Nov 11 at 19:35
Have you benchmarked this with JMH and determined that it's in need of optimization?
– Jacob G.
Nov 11 at 19:35
2
Don't change the method signature. Instead, you can create a local variable with the boxedintvalue. As for performance, the sequential search of theListis more of a problem. However, as others have suggested, don't micro-optimize the code without first analyzing the code by profiling it.
– Andreas
Nov 11 at 19:36
Did you look at the generated bytecode and/or perform benchmarks?
– UnholySheep
Nov 11 at 19:35
Did you look at the generated bytecode and/or perform benchmarks?
– UnholySheep
Nov 11 at 19:35
Have you benchmarked this with JMH and determined that it's in need of optimization?
– Jacob G.
Nov 11 at 19:35
Have you benchmarked this with JMH and determined that it's in need of optimization?
– Jacob G.
Nov 11 at 19:35
2
2
Don't change the method signature. Instead, you can create a local variable with the boxed
int value. As for performance, the sequential search of the List is more of a problem. However, as others have suggested, don't micro-optimize the code without first analyzing the code by profiling it.– Andreas
Nov 11 at 19:36
Don't change the method signature. Instead, you can create a local variable with the boxed
int value. As for performance, the sequential search of the List is more of a problem. However, as others have suggested, don't micro-optimize the code without first analyzing the code by profiling it.– Andreas
Nov 11 at 19:36
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
You should test that under a JMH.
- You can avoid the boxing problem by using a
Integer.valueOf(int)once and passing it toList::contains(Object). - The compiler may be efficient enough to understand that
numberis never changed and do that for you.
For the rest, without more information (type of allDraws ?), there might be other optimization to do before boxing conversion.
answered Nov 11 at 19:39
NoDataFound
5,5621740
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53252422%2fif-method-argument-is-a-primitive-int-then-myarraylist-containsprimitivearg-w%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
You should test that under a JMH.
- You can avoid the boxing problem by using a
Integer.valueOf(int)once and passing it toList::contains(Object). - The compiler may be efficient enough to understand that
numberis never changed and do that for you.
For the rest, without more information (type of allDraws ?), there might be other optimization to do before boxing conversion.
answered Nov 11 at 19:39
NoDataFound
5,5621740
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
You should test that under a JMH.
- You can avoid the boxing problem by using a
Integer.valueOf(int)once and passing it toList::contains(Object). - The compiler may be efficient enough to understand that
numberis never changed and do that for you.
For the rest, without more information (type of allDraws ?), there might be other optimization to do before boxing conversion.
answered Nov 11 at 19:39
NoDataFound
5,5621740
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
You should test that under a JMH.
- You can avoid the boxing problem by using a
Integer.valueOf(int)once and passing it toList::contains(Object). - The compiler may be efficient enough to understand that
numberis never changed and do that for you.
For the rest, without more information (type of allDraws ?), there might be other optimization to do before boxing conversion.
answered Nov 11 at 19:39
NoDataFound
5,5621740
You should test that under a JMH.
- You can avoid the boxing problem by using a
Integer.valueOf(int)once and passing it toList::contains(Object). - The compiler may be efficient enough to understand that
numberis never changed and do that for you.
For the rest, without more information (type of allDraws ?), there might be other optimization to do before boxing conversion.
answered Nov 11 at 19:39
NoDataFound
5,5621740
answered Nov 11 at 19:39
NoDataFound
5,5621740
answered Nov 11 at 19:39
NoDataFound
5,5621740
answered Nov 11 at 19:39
NoDataFound
5,5621740
5,5621740
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53252422%2fif-method-argument-is-a-primitive-int-then-myarraylist-containsprimitivearg-w%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Did you look at the generated bytecode and/or perform benchmarks?
– UnholySheep
Nov 11 at 19:35
Have you benchmarked this with JMH and determined that it's in need of optimization?
– Jacob G.
Nov 11 at 19:35
2
Don't change the method signature. Instead, you can create a local variable with the boxed
intvalue. As for performance, the sequential search of theListis more of a problem. However, as others have suggested, don't micro-optimize the code without first analyzing the code by profiling it.– Andreas
Nov 11 at 19:36