Does method map=null and map.clear() are the same?

Question

Code:

public class MyClass {
 private Map<Integer,String> myMap=new HashMap<Integer, String>();
 ...........................


void methodFillMap(){
   myMap.put(.....);

 .....................
}

}

What is correct:

 void methodFillMap(){
 myMap.clear();
 myMap.put(.....);

 .....................
 }

or

void methodFillMap(){
myMap=null;
myMap.put(.....);

 .....................

} or better

void methodFillMap(){
  myMap=new HashMap<Integer, String>();
  myMap.put(.....);

  .....................
}

MByD · Accepted Answer · 2012-03-07 08:21:33Z

8

NO. they are not the same.

map = null assigns null to the Map reference.
map.clear() clears the content of the map, but the object still exists and map still references to it.

answered Mar 7, 2012 at 8:21

MByD

138k30 gold badges269 silver badges278 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

fpacifici · Accepted Answer · 2012-03-07 08:21:03Z

void methodFillMap(){ myMap=null; myMap.put(.....);

will simply throw a NullPointerException.

To clear a map you should use myMap.clear().

By the way there are two differences between reinstantiating the map and using clear:

-clear won't resize the map. IF the HashMap contained n buckets, after a clear it will still contain n empty buckets, with performance consequences (positive or negative depending on your usage of the map)

-if you use clear you are not throwing away the object, thus it will not be managed through next GC, with impact (positive) on GC time if this happens a lot.

nist · Accepted Answer · 2012-03-07 08:26:10Z

3

The last one is the best one if you not coding for a system with very limited memmory then it's the first one that is best

In the first case you have to clear the hashtabel whitch takes some computation.
The secound won't even work since you just got a null reference and not a hashmap.
In the third case you just throw away the old hashmap and let the garbage collector handle the old one.

answered Mar 7, 2012 at 8:26

nist

1,7213 gold badges17 silver badges25 bronze badges

1 Comment

Seph Over a year ago

There's a major difference between 1 and 3.. if anything else has an active reference to the map (via reflection or just another local variable that references map) then your items will remain in memory as long as that other reference exists; worse than that is the fact you then have two maps with separate entities. In general map.Clear() should be used unless the time to run the clear notability slows your application.

HJW · Accepted Answer · 2012-03-07 08:21:34Z

2

After setting the map to null, putting anything inside of it will result in a NullPointerException.

answered Mar 7, 2012 at 8:21

HJW

23.5k51 gold badges147 silver badges218 bronze badges

Comments

aviad · Accepted Answer · 2012-03-07 08:22:51Z

2

The are not the same because map=nul does not nulify the map entries. map=null only nullifies the reference to the map. See the clear implementation from JDK 7 below:

    public void clear() {
        modCount++;
        Entry[] tab = table;
        for (int i = 0; i < tab.length; i++)
            tab[i] = null;
        size = 0;
    }

I would use map.clear().

answered Mar 7, 2012 at 8:22

aviad

8,2789 gold badges55 silver badges100 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Does method map=null and map.clear() are the same?

5 Answers 5

Comments

Comments

1 Comment

Comments

Comments

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

5 Answers 5

Comments

Comments

1 Comment

Comments

Comments

Related