Optimizing a Query on a Collection

Listen Print

Optimizing a Query on a Collection

by Jack Shirazi
09/19/2000

Querying a collection in Java is a frequently executed task in most applications. If you find that a particular query is a bottleneck in your application, how can you optimize that query to make it faster? In this article, I'll provide an example of how you might go about speeding up this common type of congestion. We'll run through a tuning exercise to improve the performance of a query on a list, using several standard tuning techniques discussed in my book, Java Performance Tuning.

The Query

First, we'll start with the problem. I'll use an indexable collection to hold my collection of strings. For the query I'll use a simple test that checks whether any particular string includes one of a set of specified substrings. The query will simply return a count of how many strings include those substrings. For example, the list might be:

"code"
"rode"
"load"
"toad"
"road"

And the query might be "how many strings in the list contain the substrings 'od' or 'lo.'" (The answer to this particular query would be '3' for this example list.)

For my actual collection, I'll generate multicharacter strings using the lowercase characters of the Latin alphabet ('a' to 'z'). For example, a collection of all four-character strings generated in this way would produce a collection of 26 x 26 x 26 x 26 = 456976 four-character strings. I'll simply query this collection for the count of strings that contain any of the substrings "ie" or "xy" or "pq." I've elected to use a Vector object to hold the collection for the start of the tests.

I've used an easily generated collection for the data, and also a straightforward query, to avoid any application-specific distractions. I want to focus on the tuning here. The query is representative of many types of queries I've seen in applications.

The simple, straightforward version of the query is:

int count = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < collection.size(); i++)
{
  if(    ( ((String) collection.get(i)).indexOf("ie") != -1 )
       | ( ((String) collection.get(i)).indexOf("xy") != -1 )
       | ( ((String) collection.get(i)).indexOf("pq") != -1 ) )
    count++;
}
return count;

Several items immediately leap out at me. The first is the inappropriate use of the normal boolean-OR operator, (|), rather than the short-circuit boolean-OR operator, (||); the second is the unnecessarily repeated method call in the loop test, (collection.size()); and the third is the repeated String cast in the query. All of these are standard targets for optimization in loops (see Chapter 7, "Loops," in Java Performance Tuning).

However, just because these are standard optimizations, doesn't mean we should apply them all immediately without testing their effects. So, let's test them. For my tests, I'll use the Sun VMs from the Java SDK 1.2 and 1.3. In addition, I'll also test with the HotSpot VMs delivered with these two SDKs--HotSpot versions 1.0 and 2.0. I also like to test one non-JIT VM, which in this case will be the 1.2 VM with the JIT turned off. This is easily done by setting the "java.compiler" property to "NONE," (using java "-Djava.compiler=NONE" ..., for example).

Applying the Boolean-OR Operator Optimization

Basically, a short-circuit boolean operator avoids evaluating its right-hand side if its left-hand side provides a conclusive result. These operators are also discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 of Java Performance Tuning.

Eliminating the Unnecessarily Repeated Method Call

To avoid repeating the method call in the loop test, we can simply replace:

    for(int i = 0; i < collection.size(); i++)

with

    int max = collection.size();
    for(int i = 0; i < max; i++)

Amazingly, while most of the VMs gain one or two percent in speed from this change, eliminating the repeated method call actually makes the 1.2 JIT VM run 40 percent slower! See test3 under Table and Listings. (While I can't imagine what makes the change so disadvantaged, I suspect it's some inefficient artifact of the native-code generation on my processor, such as an incorrect integer alignment. This likelihood is confirmed by a further test, which combines the two optimizations used so far (see test4 under Table and Listings).

This test gives the best speed so far for most of the VMs. It also registers only a slight overall decrease in performance for 1.2 VM, even though the short-circuit operator optimization could not have directly eliminated the 40-percent decrease in performance from the size() call replacement.

Eliminating Casts

Let's push on and try eliminating the unnecessary String casts. This is done by simply holding the first casted object in a variable of the appropriate type. For example:

for(int i = 0; i < max; i++)
{
  if(     ( ((String) collection.get(i)).indexOf("ie") != -1 )
       || ( ((String) collection.get(i)).indexOf("xy") != -1 )
       || ( ((String) collection.get(i)).indexOf("pq") != -1 ) )

becomes

String s;
for(int i = 0; i < max; i++)
{
  if(     ( (s = (String) collection.get(i)).indexOf("ie") != -1 )
       || (                                s.indexOf("xy") != -1 )
       || (                                s.indexOf("pq") != -1 ) )

All the VMs have a significant increase in speed with this improvement. I've included the results of testing with all the optimizations together in test5 and also, without the size() call elimination, in test6 in the Table and Listings.

Test5 shows all the VMs are now significantly faster than their starting test measurments. Only the 1.2 VM records a faster time for test6.

Avoiding Synchronization

As I mentioned earlier, we've been using a Vector object to hold the collections so far. In most applications, bottleneck queries tend to be read-only or single-threaded. In either case, you can normally use a nonsynchronized object to hold the collection. To do so here requires a simple change to using an ArrayList object instead of the Vector object we first used. The code does not otherwise change. (For more on Java collections, see Chapter 11, "Structures" in Java Performance Tuning.)

The results of testing the optimizations so far, together with the change to an ArrayList collection object are listed in test7 under Table and Listings. I've also tested without the size() call elimination in test8. Test7 is now the fastest for all VMs, including the 1.2 JIT VM. For the 1.2 VM, the accumulated changes could have resulted in avoiding the inefficient native-code generation problem.

Avoiding the Method Accessor

Another standard optimization is to avoid repeatedly using a method accessor to access elements of a collection if it is possible to access the elements directly in some way. (See Chapter 5, "Strings," of Java Performance Tuning.)

For collection queries, avoiding method accessors is often simple to achieve by implementing the query in the collection class. For the example here we could implement our own java.util.List class, and implement the query in that class, thus gaining access to the internal collection. There is, however, a quicker method. Because Vector is implemented with its internal element collection defined as protected, we can subclass Vector to gain access to the internal element collection, and implement the query in our subclass, like this:

class TestList
  extends Vector
{
  public int customQuery()
  {
    int count = 0;
    String s;
    for(int i = 0; i < elementCount; i++)
    {
      if(     ( (s = (String) elementData[i]).indexOf("ie") != -1 )
           || (                       s.indexOf("xy") != -1 )
           || (                       s.indexOf("pq") != -1 ) )
        count++;
    }
    return count;
  }
}

The equivalent of the original test is now just:

    return collection.customQuery();

The results of this test are shown in test9 of Table and Listings. All the VMs show that this is now the fastest test (except the first run of HotSpot 1.0).

Nonstandard Optimizations

The previous section showed the last standard optimization I'd apply to the example presented in this article. To give you a flavor of some nonstandard optimizations you might apply, see test10 through test14 in the (Table and Listings), which move instance variables to local variables, and reimplement the collection with an underlying String[] array to hold the elements. (Also see the "Variables" section in Chapter 6, and Chapter 11 of Java Performance Tuning.) For a complete list of all tests, go to the Table and Listings.

Results

This tuning exercise illustrates that it is not difficult to gain a significant speedup in querying a collection. The Table and Listings results verify that even for the HotSpot VMs with their optimizations applied, you can increase the query's speed.

Interestingly, the 1.2 VM is the VM that could be made to go the fastest after all the manual optimizations were applied. (test9 shows the 1.2 VM running at under 40 percent, while no other VM achieved even the 45-percent mark. All timings are on the same absolute scale.) I have found that, in general, when no optimizations have been made to an application, optimizing VMs (like the 1.3 VM and the HotSpot VMs) frequently provide better performance.

It is much easier and more cost effective to simply use an optimizing VM, rather than to spend time optimizing. But where extensive manual optimizations can be applied, a plain JIT VM can eventually be made to run faster than that of optimizing VMs. This is actually not surprising, since no optimizing VM is likely to be capable of optimizing as intelligently as a person.

Full Test Code Listing

To view the full test code listing, click here.

Jack Shirazi is an independent consultant. He was an early adopter of Java, and for the last few years has consulted mainly for the financial sector, focusing on Java performance. Before using Java, Jack spent many years tuning Smalltalk applications. Jack's early career involved research in theoretical physics and bioinformatics. Jack has publications in the field of protein structure and is proud to have contributed to some of the core Perl5 modules.

O'Reilly & Associates will soon release (September 2000) Java Performance Tuning.

Sample Chapter 4, Object Creation, is available free online.
You can also look at the Table of Contents, the Index, and the Full Description of the book.
For more information, or to order the book, click here.