commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adrian Nistor (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (COLLECTIONS-427) performance problem in SetUniqueList.retainAll()
Date Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:54:34 GMT


Adrian Nistor commented on COLLECTIONS-427:

Hi Thomas,

> users need to know what they are doing and be aware of the
> performance constraints

:-) true, and how often does that happen?

> this is not a problem limited to commons-collections

Ok, I will try this "others do it too" argument next time when I get a
speeding ticket.  I will let you know how that works out :-)

> devices with limited memory

Is Apache Collections optimized for such devices?  How many
optimizations for such devices do we have?  1, 2, 5?  It seems quite a
unique instance here that we are all of the sudden worrying about some
memory (less than half of this collection, and short lived).

Overall, I still think that if we can optimize something without
disadvantages (I would not count this memory thing, except the case we
are optimizing memory---small quantities of memory---in more than 5
places in the entire Apache Collections), there is no reason to not do
it.  But all the pros and cons are in this thread, so in the end do
what you think best for this library.



> performance problem in SetUniqueList.retainAll()
> ------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: COLLECTIONS-427
>                 URL:
>             Project: Commons Collections
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 3.2.1
>         Environment: java 1.6.0_24
> Ubuntu 11.10
>            Reporter: Mert Guldur
>             Fix For: 4.0-alpha1, 4.0
>         Attachments:, patch.diff
> I am encountering a performance problem in SetUniqueList.retainAll().
> It appears in version 3.2.1 and also in revision 1365132.  I attached
> a test that exposes this problem and a patch that fixes it.  On my
> machine, for this test, the patch provides a 621X speedup.
> To run the test, just do:
> $ java Test
> The output for the un-patched version is:
> Time is 6215
> The output for the patched version is:
> Time is 10
> There are two problems here.  First, "SetUniqueList.retainAll()"
> should have similar implementation with the current implementation of
> "ListOrderedSet.retainAll()", which is more optimized.  Second, even
> "ListOrderedSet.retainAll()" has a performance problem, which was
> reported and explained in detail in COLLECTIONS-426.
> The attached patch has two parts.  The first part (the first loop) is
> inspired from COLLECTIONS-426.  The second part (everything after the
> first loop) is in fact the current implementation of
> "ListOrderedSet.retainAll()", with some minor changes to adapt it for
> the current code.  Overall, the attached patch is very similar to the
> COLLECTIONS-426 patch.
> I will rehash some of the information from COLLECTIONS-426 (which
> describes "ListOrderedSet.retainAll()") for the current
> "SetUniqueList.retainAll()".
> The current code for "SetUniqueList.retainAll()" is:
> {code:java|borderStyle=solid}
> public boolean retainAll(Collection<?> coll) {
>     boolean result = super.retainAll(coll);
>     set.retainAll(coll);
>     return result;
> }
> {code} 
> where both "super.retainAll(coll)" and "set.retainAll(coll)" can have
> quadratic complexity, e.g., if "coll" is a List.  Both these calls to
> "retainAll" are in fact calls to
> "java.util.AbstractCollection.retainAll()", which has the code:
> {code:java|borderStyle=solid}
> public boolean retainAll(Collection<?> c) {
>     boolean modified = false;
>     Iterator<E> e = iterator();
>     while (e.hasNext()) {
>         if (!c.contains( {
>             e.remove();
>             modified = true;
>         }
>     }
>     return modified;
> }
> {code} 
> which iterates over "this" and calls "contains()" on "c".  Mapping
> this code back to "SetUniqueList.retainAll()" means that the code
> iterates over "this" and "set" and calls "contains()" on "coll".  If
> "coll" has slow "contains()" (e.g., if "coll" is a list), then
> "SetUniqueList.retainAll()" has quadratic complexity.
> The patch iterates over "coll" and calls "contains()" on "set", which
> we know is fast, because "set" is a Set.  For a more detailed
> discussion of the patch and the problem, see the current
> implementation of "ListOrderedSet.retainAll()", the discussion for
> COLLECTIONS-426, and the patch for COLLECTIONS-426.
> Is this a bug, or am I misunderstanding the intended behavior?  If so,
> can you please confirm if the patch is correct?

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message