Is there any reason to prefer a CharBuffer to a char[] in the following:
CharBuffer buf = CharBuffer.allocate(DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE);
while( in.read(buf) >= 0 ) {
out.append( buf.flip() );
buf.clear();
}
vs.
char[] buf = new char[DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE];
int n;
while( (n = in.read(buf)) >= 0 ) {
out.write( buf, 0, n );
}
(where in is a Reader and out in a Writer)?
If this is the only thing you're doing with the buffer, then the array is probably the better choice in this instance.
CharBuffer has lots of extra chrome on it, but none of it is relevant in this case - and will only slow things down a fraction.
You can always refactor later if you need to make things more complicated.
No, there's really no reason to prefer a CharBuffer in this case.
In general, though, CharBuffer (and ByteBuffer) can really simplify APIs and encourage correct processing. If you were designing a public API, it's definitely worth considering a buffer-oriented API.
The CharBuffer version is slightly less complicated (one less variable), encapsulates buffer size handling and makes use of a standard API. Generally I would prefer this.
However there is still one good reason to prefer the array version, in some cases at least. CharBuffer was only introduced in Java 1.4 so if you are deploying to an earlier version you can't use Charbuffer (unless you role-your-own/use a backport).
P.S If you use a backport remember to remove it once you catch up to the version containing the "real" version of the backported code.
I think that CharBuffer and ByteBuffer (as well as any other xBuffer) were meant for reusability so you can buf.clear() them instead of going through reallocation every time
If you don't reuse them, you're not using their full potential and it will add extra overhead. However if you're planning on scaling this function this might be a good idea to keep them there
The difference, in practice, is actually <10%, not 30% as others are reporting.
To read and write a 5MB file 24 times, my numbers taken using a Profiler. They were on average:
char[] = 4139 ms
CharBuffer = 4466 ms
ByteBuffer = 938 (direct) ms
Individual tests a couple times favored CharBuffer.
I also tried replacing the File-based IO with In-Memory IO and the performance was similar. If you are trying to transfer from one native stream to another, then you are better off using a "direct" ByteBuffer.
With less than 10% performance difference, in practice, I would favor the CharBuffer. It's syntax is clearer, there's less extraneous variables, and you can do more direct manipulation on it (i.e. anything that asks for a CharSequence).
Benchmark is below... it is slightly wrong as the BufferedReader is allocated inside the test-method rather than outside... however, the example below allows you to isolate the IO time and eliminate factors like a string or byte stream resizing its internal memory buffer, etc.
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
File f = getBytes(5000000);
System.out.println(f.getAbsolutePath());
try {
System.gc();
List<Main> impls = new java.util.ArrayList<Main>();
impls.add(new CharArrayImpl());
//impls.add(new CharArrayNoBuffImpl());
impls.add(new CharBufferImpl());
//impls.add(new CharBufferNoBuffImpl());
impls.add(new ByteBufferDirectImpl());
//impls.add(new CharBufferDirectImpl());
for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
for (Main impl : impls) {
test(f, impl);
}
System.out.println("-----");
if(i==0)
continue; //reset profiler
}
System.gc();
System.out.println("Finished");
return;
} finally {
f.delete();
}
}
static int BUFFER_SIZE = 1000;
static File getBytes(int size) throws IOException {
File f = File.createTempFile("input", ".txt");
FileWriter writer = new FileWriter(f);
Random r = new Random();
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
writer.write(Integer.toString(5));
}
writer.close();
return f;
}
static void test(File f, Main impl) throws IOException {
InputStream in = new FileInputStream(f);
File fout = File.createTempFile("output", ".txt");
try {
OutputStream out = new FileOutputStream(fout, false);
try {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
impl.runTest(in, out);
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println(impl.getClass().getName() + " = " + (end - start) + "ms");
} finally {
out.close();
}
} finally {
fout.delete();
in.close();
}
}
public abstract void runTest(InputStream ins, OutputStream outs) throws IOException;
public static class CharArrayImpl extends Main {
char[] buff = new char[BUFFER_SIZE];
public void runTest(InputStream ins, OutputStream outs) throws IOException {
Reader in = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(ins));
Writer out = new BufferedWriter(new OutputStreamWriter(outs));
int n;
while ((n = in.read(buff)) >= 0) {
out.write(buff, 0, n);
}
}
}
public static class CharBufferImpl extends Main {
CharBuffer buff = CharBuffer.allocate(BUFFER_SIZE);
public void runTest(InputStream ins, OutputStream outs) throws IOException {
Reader in = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(ins));
Writer out = new BufferedWriter(new OutputStreamWriter(outs));
int n;
while ((n = in.read(buff)) >= 0) {
buff.flip();
out.append(buff);
buff.clear();
}
}
}
public static class ByteBufferDirectImpl extends Main {
ByteBuffer buff = ByteBuffer.allocateDirect(BUFFER_SIZE * 2);
public void runTest(InputStream ins, OutputStream outs) throws IOException {
ReadableByteChannel in = Channels.newChannel(ins);
WritableByteChannel out = Channels.newChannel(outs);
int n;
while ((n = in.read(buff)) >= 0) {
buff.flip();
out.write(buff);
buff.clear();
}
}
}
You should avoid CharBuffer in recent Java versions, there is a bug in #subsequence(). You cannot get a subsequence from the second half of the buffer since the implementation confuses capacity and remaining. I observed the bug in java 6-0-11 and 6-0-12.