我一直是一个简单使用的人:
List<String> names = new ArrayList<>();
我使用接口作为可移植性的类型名称,这样当我问类似这样的问题时,我就可以修改代码。
LinkedList何时应用于ArrayList,反之亦然?
我一直是一个简单使用的人:
List<String> names = new ArrayList<>();
我使用接口作为可移植性的类型名称,这样当我问类似这样的问题时,我就可以修改代码。
LinkedList何时应用于ArrayList,反之亦然?
当前回答
正确或不正确:请在本地执行测试并自行决定!
LinkedList中的编辑/删除速度比ArrayList快。
Array支持的ArrayList需要两倍的大小,在大容量应用程序中更糟糕。
以下是每个操作的单元测试结果。计时单位为纳秒。
Operation ArrayList LinkedList
AddAll (Insert) 101,16719 2623,29291
Add (Insert-Sequentially) 152,46840 966,62216
Add (insert-randomly) 36527 29193
remove (Delete) 20,56,9095 20,45,4904
contains (Search) 186,15,704 189,64,981
代码如下:
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Test;
import java.util.*;
public class ArrayListVsLinkedList {
private static final int MAX = 500000;
String[] strings = maxArray();
////////////// ADD ALL ////////////////////////////////////////
@Test
public void arrayListAddAll() {
Watch watch = new Watch();
List<String> stringList = Arrays.asList(strings);
List<String> arrayList = new ArrayList<String>(MAX);
watch.start();
arrayList.addAll(stringList);
watch.totalTime("Array List addAll() = ");//101,16719 Nanoseconds
}
@Test
public void linkedListAddAll() throws Exception {
Watch watch = new Watch();
List<String> stringList = Arrays.asList(strings);
watch.start();
List<String> linkedList = new LinkedList<String>();
linkedList.addAll(stringList);
watch.totalTime("Linked List addAll() = "); //2623,29291 Nanoseconds
}
//Note: ArrayList is 26 time faster here than LinkedList for addAll()
///////////////// INSERT /////////////////////////////////////////////
@Test
public void arrayListAdd() {
Watch watch = new Watch();
List<String> arrayList = new ArrayList<String>(MAX);
watch.start();
for (String string : strings)
arrayList.add(string);
watch.totalTime("Array List add() = ");//152,46840 Nanoseconds
}
@Test
public void linkedListAdd() {
Watch watch = new Watch();
List<String> linkedList = new LinkedList<String>();
watch.start();
for (String string : strings)
linkedList.add(string);
watch.totalTime("Linked List add() = "); //966,62216 Nanoseconds
}
//Note: ArrayList is 9 times faster than LinkedList for add sequentially
/////////////////// INSERT IN BETWEEN ///////////////////////////////////////
@Test
public void arrayListInsertOne() {
Watch watch = new Watch();
List<String> stringList = Arrays.asList(strings);
List<String> arrayList = new ArrayList<String>(MAX + MAX / 10);
arrayList.addAll(stringList);
String insertString0 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 10);
String insertString1 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 20);
String insertString2 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 30);
String insertString3 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 40);
watch.start();
arrayList.add(insertString0);
arrayList.add(insertString1);
arrayList.add(insertString2);
arrayList.add(insertString3);
watch.totalTime("Array List add() = ");//36527
}
@Test
public void linkedListInsertOne() {
Watch watch = new Watch();
List<String> stringList = Arrays.asList(strings);
List<String> linkedList = new LinkedList<String>();
linkedList.addAll(stringList);
String insertString0 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 10);
String insertString1 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 20);
String insertString2 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 30);
String insertString3 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 40);
watch.start();
linkedList.add(insertString0);
linkedList.add(insertString1);
linkedList.add(insertString2);
linkedList.add(insertString3);
watch.totalTime("Linked List add = ");//29193
}
//Note: LinkedList is 3000 nanosecond faster than ArrayList for insert randomly.
////////////////// DELETE //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
@Test
public void arrayListRemove() throws Exception {
Watch watch = new Watch();
List<String> stringList = Arrays.asList(strings);
List<String> arrayList = new ArrayList<String>(MAX);
arrayList.addAll(stringList);
String searchString0 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 10);
String searchString1 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 20);
watch.start();
arrayList.remove(searchString0);
arrayList.remove(searchString1);
watch.totalTime("Array List remove() = ");//20,56,9095 Nanoseconds
}
@Test
public void linkedListRemove() throws Exception {
Watch watch = new Watch();
List<String> linkedList = new LinkedList<String>();
linkedList.addAll(Arrays.asList(strings));
String searchString0 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 10);
String searchString1 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 20);
watch.start();
linkedList.remove(searchString0);
linkedList.remove(searchString1);
watch.totalTime("Linked List remove = ");//20,45,4904 Nanoseconds
}
//Note: LinkedList is 10 millisecond faster than ArrayList while removing item.
///////////////////// SEARCH ///////////////////////////////////////////
@Test
public void arrayListSearch() throws Exception {
Watch watch = new Watch();
List<String> stringList = Arrays.asList(strings);
List<String> arrayList = new ArrayList<String>(MAX);
arrayList.addAll(stringList);
String searchString0 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 10);
String searchString1 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 20);
watch.start();
arrayList.contains(searchString0);
arrayList.contains(searchString1);
watch.totalTime("Array List addAll() time = ");//186,15,704
}
@Test
public void linkedListSearch() throws Exception {
Watch watch = new Watch();
List<String> linkedList = new LinkedList<String>();
linkedList.addAll(Arrays.asList(strings));
String searchString0 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 10);
String searchString1 = getString(true, MAX / 2 + 20);
watch.start();
linkedList.contains(searchString0);
linkedList.contains(searchString1);
watch.totalTime("Linked List addAll() time = ");//189,64,981
}
//Note: Linked List is 500 Milliseconds faster than ArrayList
class Watch {
private long startTime;
private long endTime;
public void start() {
startTime = System.nanoTime();
}
private void stop() {
endTime = System.nanoTime();
}
public void totalTime(String s) {
stop();
System.out.println(s + (endTime - startTime));
}
}
private String[] maxArray() {
String[] strings = new String[MAX];
Boolean result = Boolean.TRUE;
for (int i = 0; i < MAX; i++) {
strings[i] = getString(result, i);
result = !result;
}
return strings;
}
private String getString(Boolean result, int i) {
return String.valueOf(result) + i + String.valueOf(!result);
}
}
其他回答
ArrayList中的get(i)操作比LinkedList更快,因为:ArrayList:List接口的可调整大小的数组实现LinkedList:list和Deque接口的双重链接列表实现
索引到列表中的操作将从开始或结束遍历列表,以更接近指定索引的为准。
我已经阅读了答案,但有一种情况是,我总是使用LinkedList而不是ArrayList,我想分享它来听取意见:
每次我有一个方法返回从DB获得的数据列表时,我总是使用LinkedList。
我的理由是,因为不可能确切地知道我得到了多少结果,所以不会浪费内存(如ArrayList中的容量和实际元素数量之间的差异),也不会浪费时间复制容量。
至于ArrayList,我同意至少应该始终使用具有初始容量的构造函数,以尽可能减少数组的重复。
链接列表的一个重要特性(我在另一个答案中没有看到)是两个列表的串联。对于数组,这是O(n)(+某些重新分配的开销),对于链接列表,这只是O(1)或O(2);-)
重要提示:对于Java的LinkedList,这不是真的!请参阅Java中是否有一种快速的链表连接方法?
以下是ArrayList和LinkedList以及CopyOnWrite ArrayList中的Big-O符号:
阵列列表
get O(1)
add O(1)
contains O(n)
next O(1)
remove O(n)
iterator.remove O(n)
链表
get O(n)
add O(1)
contains O(n)
next O(1)
remove O(1)
iterator.remove O(1)
CopyOnWrite阵列列表
get O(1)
add O(n)
contains O(n)
next O(1)
remove O(n)
iterator.remove O(n)
基于这些,您必须决定选择什么。:)
我在这里看到的一个测试只进行一次测试。但我注意到的是,您需要多次运行这些测试,最终它们的时间会收敛。基本上JVM需要预热。对于我的特定用例,我需要向列表中添加/删除项目,该列表将增加到大约500个项目。在我的测试中,LinkedList的发布速度更快,LinkedList约为50000 NS,ArrayList约为90000NS。。。给予或索取。请参见下面的代码。
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Long> times = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
times.add(doIt());
}
System.out.println("avg = " + (times.stream().mapToLong(x -> x).average()));
}
static long doIt() {
long start = System.nanoTime();
List<Object> list = new LinkedList<>();
//uncomment line below to test with ArrayList
//list = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
list.add(i);
}
Iterator it = list.iterator();
while (it.hasNext()) {
it.next();
it.remove();
}
long end = System.nanoTime();
long diff = end - start;
//uncomment to see the JVM warmup and get faster for the first few iterations
//System.out.println(diff)
return diff;
}