Java HashSet vs Array Performance

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 (and the n

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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)

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

For Enterprise software Scalable, Maintainable and clean Code is lot better. So I go for HashSet.