4 ms·

Compared to all the other bloat in Java, this is pennies

• titzer 5y ago
  If you have an object that has only one field, it still consumes at least 3 words of memory; 2 for the header, and 1 for the field. That's a 200% memory overhead. Of course that's extreme, but I've seen estimates as high as 40% of memory space the heap in large Java applications is just object headers. You probably need at least 1 header word in any scheme, but 2 is wasteful IMHO.
  • e_y_ 5y ago
    There's a way to save memory by sacrificing .hashCode() runtime performance (on the assumption that most objects never get hashed) by keeping a separate lookup table for hashcodes, at the cost of having to do the indirect lookup. I don't recall which VM used that technique. There's also fun tricks like rewriting/optimizing the object header during a copying/compacting garbage collection.
    • titzer 5y ago
      Yeah, I know that trick. I implemented an identity hashmap[1] inside of V8 that uses that, because JS objects don't have an identity hash code[2]. It uses the object address as the basis of the hash code, which means the table needs to be reorganized when the GC moves objects, which is done with a post-GC hook. The identity maps in V8 are generally short-lived. I am not aware of production JVMs that use this, because in the worst case they can use a lot more memory if a lot of objects end up needing hashcodes. [1] https://github.com/v8/v8/blob/dc712da548c7fb433caed56af9a021d964952728/src/utils/identity-map.h https://github.com/v8/v8/blob/dc712da548c7fb433caed56af9a021... [2] I guess they might have an invisible one now; I haven't looked at the implementation of WeakHashMap/Set.