Interned Strings avoid duplicate Strings. Interning saves
RAM at the expense of more CPU time to detect and replace duplicate Strings. There is only
one copy of each String that has been interned, no matter how many references point to it.
Since Strings are immutable, if two different methods "incidentally" use the same String,
(even if they concocted the same String by totally independent means, e.g. one might use the String
"sin" in the context of Moses and another in the context of trigonometry.) they
can share a copy of the same String. The process of converting duplicated Strings
to shared ones is called interning. String.intern()
gives you the address of the canonical master String. You can compare interned Strings
with simple == (which compares pointers) instead of equals
which compares the characters of the String one by one. Because Strings
are immutable, the intern process is free to further save space, for example, by not creating a separate String
literal for "pot" when it exists as a substring of some other literal such as "hippo
potamus"
Why Intern?
There are two reasons for interning Strings:
- To save space, by removing String literal duplicates.
- To speed up String equality compares. Interned Strings will
compare faster even if you use equals instead of ==.
For example, if you wanted to read CSV files containing the party affiliation of 20,000 people into a HashMap,
you would have 20,000 Strings floating around in memory to
record the affiliations. If you interned the affiliation String, there would only be a dozen
or so. Every Democrat would safely share the same copy of the immutable "democrat"
String.
Interning and String.substring
when you use String.substring the JVM allocates a new String
descriptor, but it just points into the original String literal. It does not need to
allocate space for the substring. It does not copy any characters. String. substring
does not intern the result. The original base String
cannot be garbage collected as long as there are any live references to substrings inside it.
Empty Strings resulting from String. substring
are not automatically interned either. Because of this, the resulting empty substring can still indefinitely encumber a
long base String preventing it from being garbage collected.
Interning and the void String
To ensure you don’t accidentally encumber base Strings, and
to avoid the confusion of using a mixture of blank (i.e x.length() != 0 &&
x.trim().length() == 0, e.g. " "), empty
(i.e. x.length() == 0, e.g. "") and null
(i.e. x == null) to represent the void String,
you may want to use code like this:
The Intern Gotcha
All String literals present at compile time are automatically interned. It is only Strings
generated on the fly as the program runs that might not be interned. A nasty side effect of this behaviour is that a
program will work fine for some simple cases, but fail on complex ones. The problem comes if you used ==
to test for String equality where you should have used equals. The
wrong code will still work much of the time because most String literals are naturally
interned.
Intern and new String( String)
Newbies often say foolish things like
String s = new String( "hello" );
instead of
String s = "hello";
This is the opposite of interning. You are deliberately creating a duplicate distinct (but identically valued, and
definitely not interned) "hello" String object. There
are two legitimate uses for doing that:
- To provide a unique String synchronization object.
- Unencumbering the huge base String on which a substring is embedded. By making a copy with new
String( String ), the original String
is free to be garbage collected. It can pay to use new String( String
), if you have only a few short substrings into a common mother base String. Then garbage
collection can let go of the mother String. If you have a large number of substrings so that
the entire mother String is represented in some substring, then there is no point in doing
that. It is more efficient to just reference into the common mother String with the
substring.
Is new String compelled to create a brand new underlying String
when you use new String( String )?
Yes! You might imagine a clever JVM that always interned every new String
or that simply passed back the original reference, treating it as a no-op. The language specification says that it is
fact compelled, that new String must create a new unique
reference, however, the JVM could theoretically do that by treating new String
as if it were String.substring(0) or String.
intern().substring( 0 ) and avoid actually making a physical
copy.
This brings up yet another related question. Is s == s.
substring( 0 ) compelled to be false? Yes!
One other place will see new String used legitimately is in:
String password = new String ( jpassword.getPassWord() );
getPassword returns a char[], so it is not the silliness it
first appears to be. It does this to permit you to empty the char array after use in high
security situations.
Consider piece of code like this: String s = new
String( "Hello" ); The compiler puts the literal "Hello"
in the class file is such a way that it will become an interned String when the class is
loaded. When you stupidly use new String you create a new String
on the heap, one with an address different from the interned version. (In Sun’s JVM, the interned Strings are
stored in a special pool of RAM called the perm gen, where the JVM also loads classes and
stores natively compiled code. However, the intered Strings behave no differently than had they been stored in the
ordinary object heap.) Had you written sensible code like this: String s
= "Hello"; you would not have created a duplicate String
Object. You would not have defeated the interning. s would point
directly to the interned String "Hello".
Intern and garbage Collection
In the early JDKs, any String you interned could never be garbage collected because the JVM
had to keep a reference to in its Hashtable so it could check each incoming String
to see if it already had it in the pool. With JDK 1.2 came weak references. Now unused interned Strings
will be garbage collected.
Overflow
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: String intern table overflow means
you have too many interned Strings. Some older JVM’s may limit you to 64K Strings,
which leaves perhaps 50,000 for your application. The IBM Java 1.1.8 JRE has this limit.
This is an Error not an Exception if you want to catch it. Here
is the source for a simple Java program called InternTest to test your JVM.
Under the Hood
This is a simplified version of how interning works under the hood. Inside the JVM is the heap where all allocated Objects
reside. This includes Strings both interned and ordinary. (In Sun’s JVM, the interned
Strings (which includes String literals) are stored in a special pool of RAM called the perm gen,
where the JVM also loads classes and stores natively compiled code. However, the intered Strings behave no differently
than had they been stored in the ordinary object heap.) In addition, interned Strings are
registered in a weak HashMap.
The collection of Strings registered in this HashMap is
sometimes called the String pool. However, they are ordinary Objects
and live on the heap just like any other (perhaps in an optimised way since interned Strings
tend to be long lived). The String Object lives on the heap and
a reference to it lives in the HashMap. There is so separate pool of interned String
objects.
Whenever a String is interned, it is looked up in the HashMap to
see if it exists already. If so the user gets passed a reference to the master copy. Normally he will use that copy in
preference to his. His duplicate copy then will likely soon have no references to it and will be eventually garbage
collected. If the String has never been seen before, a reference to it will be added to the
HashMap and intern will hand him a reference to his own String,
now registered as the unique master. Note that the intern process does not make a copy of the String,
it just keeps a reference to the unique master copies.
All the Strings, interned and ordinary live on the heap. When there are no references left
to a String except the intern HashMap
registry reference, it will be garbage collected since intern keeps only a weak reference
to it.
When you say new String, it is not automatically interned. Thus
there may then be duplicates on the heap. If you later use intern on that String,
those duplicates won’t be cleaned up. Only when you intern all copies of a String,
and discard references to the uninterned versions do you maintain but a single copy.
Manual Interning
The big problem with intern is once you intern a String,
you are stuck with it in RAM until the program ends. It is no longer eligible for garbage collection, even if there are
no more references to it. If you want a temporary interned String, you might consider
interning manually.
However, in the most recent JVMs, the interned string cache is now usually implemented in soft references fashion, so
that interned strings may become eligible for garbage collection as soon as they are no longer strongly referenced.
For example, let as assume you were reading a CSV file of names and addresses and storing it internally in a Collection
of some sort. Since many people live in the same city, RAM will soon become cluttered with hundreds of duplicate String
object copies of the names of local cities.
Create a HashMap (not a HashSet) to look up by city a master String
object for each city. Every time you get a city, you look it up in the HashMap. If it is
there, replace your reference with a reference to the master copy. Your String object copy will then become eligible for
garbage collection. If it not there, add the city’ String it to the HashMap.
When you are finished with the adding cities, you can discard the HashMap. The master city Strings
you put in the HashMap will still exist, will still be unique, will still behave as if they
had been String. interned, except those without any other
references will become eligible for garbage collection.
Learning More
Sun’s Javadoc on
String.
intern : available: