String.intern in Java 6, 7 and 8 – string pooling

最新推荐文章于 2016-09-02 16:38:19 发布

rocksword

最新推荐文章于 2016-09-02 16:38:19 发布

阅读量187

点赞数

分类专栏： Java

Java 专栏收录该内容

81 篇文章 0 订阅

订阅专栏

This article will describe how String.intern method was implemented in Java 6 and what changes were made in it in Java 7 and Java 8.

First of all I want to thank Yannis Bres for inspiring me to write this article.

07 June 2014 update: added 60013 as a default string pool size since Java 7u40 (instead of Java 8), added -XX:+PrintFlagsFinal and -XX:+PrintStringTableStatistics JVM parameter references, cleaned up a few typos.

This is an updated version of this article including -XX:StringTableSize=N JVM parameter description. This article is followed by String.intern in Java 6, 7 and 8 – multithreaded accessarticle describing the performance characteristics of the multithreaded access toString.intern().

String pooling

String pooling (aka string canonicalisation) is a process of replacing several String objects with equal value but different identity with a single shared String object. You can achieve this goal by keeping your own Map<String, String> (with possibly soft or weak references depending on your requirements) and using map values as canonicalised values. Or you can use String.intern()method which is provided to you by JDK.

At times of Java 6 using String.intern() was forbidden by many standards due to a high possibility to get an OutOfMemoryException if pooling went out of control. Oracle Java 7 implementation of string pooling was changed considerably. You can look for details inhttp://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6962931 and http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6962930.

String.intern() in Java 6

In those good old days all interned strings were stored in the PermGen – the fixed size part of heap mainly used for storing loaded classes and string pool. Besides explicitly interned strings, PermGen string pool also contained all literal strings earlier used in your program (the important word here is used – if a class or method was never loaded/called, any constants defined in it will not be loaded).

The biggest issue with such string pool in Java 6 was its location – the PermGen. PermGen has a fixed size and can not be expanded at runtime. You can set it using -XX:MaxPermSize=N option. As far as I know, the default PermGen size varies between 32M and 96M depending on the platform. You can increase its size, but its size will still be fixed. Such limitation required very careful usage of String.intern – you’d better not intern any uncontrolled user input using this method. That’s why string pooling at times of Java 6 was mostly implemented in the manually managed maps.

String.intern() in Java 7

Oracle engineers made an extremely important change to the string pooling logic in Java 7 – the string pool was relocated to the heap. It means that you are no longer limited by a separate fixed size memory area. All strings are now located in the heap, as most of other ordinary objects, which allows you to manage only the heap size while tuning your application. Technically, this alone could be a sufficient reason to reconsider using String.intern() in your Java 7 programs. But there are other reasons.

String pool values are garbage collected

Yes, all strings in the JVM string pool are eligible for garbage collection if there are no references to them from your program roots. It applies to all discussed versions of Java. It means that if your interned string went out of scope and there are no other references to it – it will be garbage collected from the JVM string pool.

Being eligible for garbage collection and residing in the heap, a JVM string pool seems to be a right place for all your strings, isn’t it? In theory it is true – non-used strings will be garbage collected from the pool, used strings will allow you to save memory in case then you get an equal string from the input. Seems to be a perfect memory saving strategy? Nearly so. You must know how the string pool is implemented before making any decisions.

JVM string pool implementation in Java 6, 7 and 8

The string pool is implemented as a fixed capacity hash map with each bucket containing a list of strings with the same hash code. Some implementation details could be obtained from the following Java bug report: http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6962930.

The default pool size is 1009 (it is present in the source code of the above mentioned bug report, increased in Java7u40). It was a constant in the early versions of Java 6 and became configurable between Java6u30 and Java6u41. It is configurable in Java 7 from the beginning (at least it is configurable in Java7u02). You need to specify -XX:StringTableSize=N, where N is the string pool map size. Ensure it is a prime number for the better performance.

This parameter will not help you a lot in Java 6, because you are still limited by a fixed size PermGen size. The further discussion will exclude Java 6.

Java7 (until Java7u40)

In Java 7, on the other hand, you are limited only by a much higher heap size. It means that you can set the string pool size to a rather high value in advance (this value depends on your application requirements). As a rule, one starts worrying about the memory consumption when the memory data set size grows to at least several hundred megabytes. In this situation, allocating 8-16 MB for a string pool with one million entries seems to be a reasonable trade off (do not use 1,000,000 as a -XX:StringTableSize value – it is not prime; use 1,000,003 instead).

You may expect a uniform distribution of interned strings in the buckets – read my experiments in the hashCode method performance tuning article.

You must set a higher -XX:StringTableSize value (compared to the default 1009) if you intend to actively use String.intern() – otherwise this method performance will soon degrade to a linked list performance.

I have not noticed a dependency from a string length to a time to intern a string for string lengths under 100 characters (I feel that duplicates of even 50 character long strings are rather unlikely in the real world data, so 100 chars seems to be a good test limit for me).

Here is an extract from the test application log with the default pool size: time to intern 10.000 strings (second number) after a given number of strings was already interned (first number);Integer.toString( i ), where i between 0 and 999,999 were interned:

0; time = 0.0 sec
50000; time = 0.03 sec
100000; time = 0.073 sec
150000; time = 0.13 sec
200000; time = 0.196 sec
250000; time = 0.279 sec
300000; time = 0.376 sec
350000; time = 0.471 sec
400000; time = 0.574 sec
450000; time = 0.666 sec
500000; time = 0.755 sec
550000; time = 0.854 sec
600000; time = 0.916 sec
650000; time = 1.006 sec
700000; time = 1.095 sec
750000; time = 1.273 sec
800000; time = 1.248 sec
850000; time = 1.446 sec
900000; time = 1.585 sec
950000; time = 1.635 sec
1000000; time = 1.913 sec

These test results were obtained on Core i5-3317U@1.7Ghz CPU. As you can see, they grow linearly and I was able to intern only approximately 5,000 strings per second when the JVM string pool size contained one million strings. It is unacceptably slow for most of applications having to handle a large amount of data in memory.

Now the same test results with -XX:StringTableSize=100003 option:

50000; time = 0.017 sec
100000; time = 0.009 sec
150000; time = 0.01 sec
200000; time = 0.009 sec
250000; time = 0.007 sec
300000; time = 0.008 sec
350000; time = 0.009 sec
400000; time = 0.009 sec
450000; time = 0.01 sec
500000; time = 0.013 sec
550000; time = 0.011 sec
600000; time = 0.012 sec
650000; time = 0.015 sec
700000; time = 0.015 sec
750000; time = 0.01 sec
800000; time = 0.01 sec
850000; time = 0.011 sec
900000; time = 0.011 sec
950000; time = 0.012 sec
1000000; time = 0.012 sec

As you can see, in this situation it takes nearly constant time to insert strings in the pool (there is no more than 10 strings in the bucket on average). Here are results with the same settings, but now we will insert up to 10 million strings in the pool (which means 100 strings in the bucket on average)

2000000; time = 0.024 sec
3000000; time = 0.028 sec
4000000; time = 0.053 sec
5000000; time = 0.051 sec
6000000; time = 0.034 sec
7000000; time = 0.041 sec
8000000; time = 0.089 sec
9000000; time = 0.111 sec
10000000; time = 0.123 sec

Now let’s increase the pool size to one million buckets: (1,000,003 to be precise):

1000000; time = 0.005 sec
2000000; time = 0.005 sec
3000000; time = 0.005 sec
4000000; time = 0.004 sec
5000000; time = 0.004 sec
6000000; time = 0.009 sec
7000000; time = 0.01 sec
8000000; time = 0.009 sec
9000000; time = 0.009 sec
10000000; time = 0.009 sec

As you can see, times are flat and do not look much different from “zero to one million” table for the ten times small string pool. Even my slow laptop can add one million new strings to the JVM string pool per second provided that the pool size is high enough.

Shall we still use manual string pools?

Now we need to compare this JVM string pool with a WeakHashMap<String, WeakReference<String>>, which could be used in order to emulate the JVM string pool. The following method is used forString.intern replacement:

 
    1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
  private static final WeakHashMap<String, WeakReference<String>> s_manualCache =
    new WeakHashMap<String, WeakReference<String>>( 100000 );
 
private static String manualIntern( final String str )
{
    final WeakReference<String> cached = s_manualCache.get( str );
    if ( cached != null )
    {
        final String value = cached.get();
        if ( value != null )
            return value;
    }
    s_manualCache.put( str, new WeakReference<String>( str ) );
    return str;
} 
 
  

This is the output for the same test using this manual pool:

0; manual time = 0.001 sec
50000; manual time = 0.03 sec
100000; manual time = 0.034 sec
150000; manual time = 0.008 sec
200000; manual time = 0.019 sec
250000; manual time = 0.011 sec
300000; manual time = 0.011 sec
350000; manual time = 0.008 sec
400000; manual time = 0.027 sec
450000; manual time = 0.008 sec
500000; manual time = 0.009 sec
550000; manual time = 0.008 sec
600000; manual time = 0.008 sec
650000; manual time = 0.008 sec
700000; manual time = 0.008 sec
750000; manual time = 0.011 sec
800000; manual time = 0.007 sec
850000; manual time = 0.008 sec
900000; manual time = 0.008 sec
950000; manual time = 0.008 sec
1000000; manual time = 0.008 sec

Manually written pool has provided comparable performance when JVM has sufficient memory. Unfortunately, for my test case (interning String.valueOf(0 < N < 1,000,000,000) ) of very short strings to intern, it allowed me to keep only ~2.5M such strings with -Xmx1280M. JVM string pool (size=1,000,003), on the other hand, provided the same flat performance characteristics until JVM ran out of memory with 12,72M strings in the pool (5 times more). As I think, it is a valuable hint to get rid of manual string pooling in your programs.

String.intern() in Java 7u40+ and Java 8

String pool size was increased in Java7u40 (this was a major performance update) to 60013. This value allows you to have approximately 30.000 distinct strings in the pool before your start experiencing collisions. Generally, this is sufficient for data which actually worth to intern. You can obtain this value using -XX:+PrintFlagsFinal JVM parameter.

I have tried to run the same tests on the original release of Java 8. Java 8 still accepts -XX:StringTableSize parameter and provides the comparable to Java 7 performance. The only important difference is that the default pool size was increased in Java 8 to 60013:

50000; time = 0.019 sec
100000; time = 0.009 sec
150000; time = 0.009 sec
200000; time = 0.009 sec
250000; time = 0.009 sec
300000; time = 0.009 sec
350000; time = 0.011 sec
400000; time = 0.012 sec
450000; time = 0.01 sec
500000; time = 0.013 sec
550000; time = 0.013 sec
600000; time = 0.014 sec
650000; time = 0.018 sec
700000; time = 0.015 sec
750000; time = 0.029 sec
800000; time = 0.018 sec
850000; time = 0.02 sec
900000; time = 0.017 sec
950000; time = 0.018 sec
1000000; time = 0.021 sec

Test code

Test code for this article is rather simple: a method creates and interns new strings in a loop. We also measure time it took to intern the current 10.000 strings. It worth to run this program with -verbose:gc JVM parameter to see when and what garbage collections will happen. You may also want to specify the maximal heap size using -Xmx parameter.

There are 2 tests: testStringPoolGarbageCollection will show you that a JVM string pool is actually garbage collected - check the garbage collection log messages as well as time it took to intern the strings on the second pass. This test will fail on Java 6 default PermGen size, so either update it, or update the test method argument, or use Java 7.

Second test will show you how many interned strings could be stored in memory. Run it on Java 6 with 2 different memory settings - for example -Xmx128M and -Xmx1280M (10 times more). Most likely you will see that it will not affect the number of strings you can put in the pool. On the other hand, in Java 7 you will be able to fill the whole heap with your strings.

 
    1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
  /**
 * Testing String.intern.
 *
 * Run this class at least with -verbose:gc JVM parameter.
 */
public class InternTest {
    public static void main( String[] args ) {
        testStringPoolGarbageCollection();
        testLongLoop();
    }
 
    /**
     * Use this method to see where interned strings are stored
     * and how many of them can you fit for the given heap size.
     */
    private static void testLongLoop()
    {
        test( 1000 * 1000 * 1000 );
        //uncomment the following line to see the hand-written cache performance
        //testManual( 1000 * 1000 * 1000 );
    }
 
    /**
     * Use this method to check that not used interned strings are garbage collected.
     */
    private static void testStringPoolGarbageCollection()
    {
        //first method call - use it as a reference
        test( 1000 * 1000 );
        //we are going to clean the cache here.
        System.gc();
        //check the memory consumption and how long does it take to intern strings
        //in the second method call.
        test( 1000 * 1000 );
    }
 
    private static void test( final int cnt )
    {
        final List<String> lst = new ArrayList<String>( 100 );
        long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
        for ( int i = 0; i < cnt; ++i )
        {
            final String str = "Very long test string, which tells you about something " +
            "very-very important, definitely deserving to be interned #" + i;
//uncomment the following line to test dependency from string length
//            final String str = Integer.toString( i );
            lst.add( str.intern() );
            if ( i % 10000 == 0 )
            {
                System.out.println( i + "; time = " + ( System.currentTimeMillis() - start ) / 1000.0 + " sec" );
                start = System.currentTimeMillis();
            }
        }
        System.out.println( "Total length = " + lst.size() );
    }
 
    private static final WeakHashMap<String, WeakReference<String>> s_manualCache =
        new WeakHashMap<String, WeakReference<String>>( 100000 );
 
    private static String manualIntern( final String str )
    {
        final WeakReference<String> cached = s_manualCache.get( str );
        if ( cached != null )
        {
            final String value = cached.get();
            if ( value != null )
                return value;
        }
        s_manualCache.put( str, new WeakReference<String>( str ) );
        return str;
    }
 
    private static void testManual( final int cnt )
    {
        final List<String> lst = new ArrayList<String>( 100 );
        long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
        for ( int i = 0; i < cnt; ++i )
        {
            final String str = "Very long test string, which tells you about something " +
                "very-very important, definitely deserving to be interned #" + i;
            lst.add( manualIntern( str ) );
            if ( i % 10000 == 0 )
            {
                System.out.println( i + "; manual time = " + ( System.currentTimeMillis() - start ) / 1000.0 + " sec" );
                start = System.currentTimeMillis();
            }
        }
        System.out.println( "Total length = " + lst.size() );
    }
} 
 
  

Summary

Stay away from String.intern() method on Java 6 due to a fixed size memory area (PermGen) used for JVM string pool storage.
Java 7 and 8 implement the string pool in the heap memory. It means that you are limited by the whole application memory for string pooling in Java 7 and 8.
Use -XX:StringTableSize JVM parameter in Java 7 and 8 to set the string pool map size. It is fixed, because it is implemented as a hash map with lists in the buckets. Approximate the number of distinct strings in your application (which you intend to intern) and set the pool size equal to some prime number close to this value multiplied by 2 (to reduce the likelihood of collisions). It will allow String.intern to run in the constant time and requires a rather small memory consumption per interned string (explicitly used Java WeakHashMapwill consume 4-5 times more memory for the same task).
The default value of -XX:StringTableSize parameter is 1009 in Java 6 and Java 7 until Java7u40. It was increased to 60013 in Java 7u40 (same value is used in Java 8 as well).
If you are not sure about the string pool usage, try -XX:+PrintStringTableStatistics JVM argument. It will print you the string pool usage when your program terminates.