In an effort to reduce mutability, should we rather use
public void setValues(String[] newVals) {
this.vals = ( newVals == null ? null : newVals.clone() );
}
or
public void setValues(String[] newVals) {
this.vals = ( newVals == null ? null : Arrays.copyOf(newVals, newVals.length) );
}
Using jmh, I get similar results, except that clone
seems to be marginally better.
I ran a quick test for performance: clone
, System.arrayCopy
and Arrays.copyOf
have very similar performance (jdk 1.7.06, server vm).
For details (in ms), after JIT:
clone: 68
arrayCopy: 68
Arrays.copyOf: 68
Test code:
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException,
IOException {
int sum = 0;
int[] warmup = new int[1];
warmup[0] = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < 15000; i++) { // triggers JIT
sum += copyClone(warmup);
sum += copyArrayCopy(warmup);
sum += copyCopyOf(warmup);
}
int count = 10_000_000;
int[] array = new int[count];
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
array[i] = i;
}
// additional warmup for main
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
sum += copyArrayCopy(array);
}
System.gc();
// copyClone
long start = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
sum += copyClone(array);
}
long end = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println("clone: " + (end - start) / 1000000);
System.gc();
// copyArrayCopy
start = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
sum += copyArrayCopy(array);
}
end = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println("arrayCopy: " + (end - start) / 1000000);
System.gc();
// copyCopyOf
start = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
sum += copyCopyOf(array);
}
end = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println("Arrays.copyOf: " + (end - start) / 1000000);
// sum
System.out.println(sum);
}
private static int copyClone(int[] array) {
int[] copy = array.clone();
return copy[copy.length - 1];
}
private static int copyArrayCopy(int[] array) {
int[] copy = new int[array.length];
System.arraycopy(array, 0, copy, 0, array.length);
return copy[copy.length - 1];
}
private static int copyCopyOf(int[] array) {
int[] copy = Arrays.copyOf(array, array.length);
return copy[copy.length - 1];
}