[jdom-interest] AttributeList performance

Martin Schulz schulz at videotron.ca
Sat Apr 30 15:20:51 PDT 2005


I would be interested in your code... just let me know what kind of 
you and other parties are upholding.

At this point I would also thank the list for covering the topic 
I'll try to summarize shortly.


Tatu Saloranta wrote:

>--- Elias Ross <eross at m-qube.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 13:21 -0700, Tatu Saloranta
>>>As to the access time itself, I'm fairly confident
>>>that the HashMap solution is pretty much always
>>>HashMap which is more heavy-weight than a simple
>>It's pretty hard to come up with a solution that
>>satisfies the
>>degenerate case (Elements with lots of attributes)
>>and the common case (one or two attributes.)
>>I suggested sorting the attributes and doing a
>>binary search would be
>>okay, but it seemed not terribly popular.
>One problem is that unfortunately sorting and binary
>searching are
>not very inefficient with Java Strings (compared to
>This based on comparison I made at one point; the
>HashMap implementation (JDK 1.4+) is pretty damn fast,
>compared to about any other generic alternative, when
>the main goal is fast
>access time. If you have a String handy, and
>especially if it has been
>intern()ed, it is very hard to get anything faster.
>Binary search on Strings
>would be faster than linear search, but only
>significantly so for larger
>sets (larger than what HashMap's minimum).
>Sorting + binary search would be a decent choice if
>one wants to access
>attributes in alphabetic (etc) order. Of course you
>could also sort by
>hash value, which would allow for bit faster access
>(and 'random' ordering
>when iterating over it), but still not as fast as
>hash-based alternative...
>>One solution would be to add a protected constructor
>or factory to
>>Element that would allow an alternative attribute
>>list implementation to
>>be specified.  Then, clients could create their own
>>DOMBuilder which returns Elements with this new
>attribute class. 
>>This isn't exactly clean either, but might be good
>And/or the default implementation would choose one
>that seems most suitable; at least for documents built
>from parser.
>In this case it is known how many attributes there
>are, although
>usage patterns are not known. One could extend JDom to
>use simple
>"profiles" (read-only trees -> optimize a bit for fast
>access don't worry
>about mods; heavy modifications -> balance the needs;
>read-and-cache -> optimize for long-running
>access-have structs, for
>long-living objects) that could choose more optimal
>It's not actually all _that_ difficult to create a
>specialized List
>that has fast by-name access, compact presentation
>(doesn't use
>more memory than ArrayList with Attribute objects
>inside), simple
>indexed access, and that's still quick to construct,
>given initial
>size needed. This because while ArrayList and HashMap
>are very good
>general-purpose data containers, it's usually possible
>to create
>even better special-purpose ones for specific need...
>and this is
>one case where such a "ListMap" could be done.
>I have some code available if someone is really
>interested in pursuing
>this. In its current form its even more highly
>specialized (for the
>needs of StAX 1.0 XMLStreamReader's attribute access,
>and can
>count on all names being intern()ed), but it would at
>least show
>one approach (kind of hybrid flat Map with contiguous
>shared spill
>area... yeah, I'm sure that pretty much sums it up!
>:-) ) that
>has performed nicely.
>-+ Tatu +-
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>To control your jdom-interest membership:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.jdom.org/pipermail/jdom-interest/attachments/20050430/73467c57/attachment.htm

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list