interned Strings : Java Glossary


interned Strings
Interned Strings avoid duplicate Strings. Interning saves RAM (Random Access Memory) at the expense of more CPU (Central Processing Unit) 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 hippopotamus
Why Intern? Overflow
Interning and substring Under The Hood
Interning and the void String Manual Interning
The Intern Gotcha Learning More
Intern and new Links
Intern and garbage Collection

Why Intern?

There are two reasons for interning Strings:
  1. To save space, by removing String literal duplicates.
  2. 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 (Comma-Separated Value) 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 (Java Virtual Machine) 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

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)

String s = new String( "hello" );
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:
  1. To provide a unique String synchronization object.
  2. 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

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 Oracle’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 JDK (Java Development Kit) s, 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  Java version 1.2 came weak references. Now unused interned Strings will be garbage collected.

With JDK 1.2+, an interned String can be garbage collected if there are no more references to it and it is not a compile time constant. This means if you programmatically recreate the String (e.g. with a StringBuilder) and reintern it, a new different String object, with a different identityHashCode will become the master unique String object. This quirk does not cause any practical problems. When you compare two interned strings containing the same characters with == they still always come out true.


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 (International Business Machines) Java 1.1.8 JRE (Java Runtime Environment) 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.

Also be aware interning inhibits garbage collection of interned Strings.

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 Oracle’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 JVM s, 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. Here is how you might manage the dedup internening proceses yourself, similar to the way the JVM does it.

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 duplicate will then become eligible for garbage collection. If it is not in the HashMap, add the city String 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

Oracle’s Javadoc on String.intern : available:

This page is posted
on the web at:

Optional Replicator mirror
on local hard disk J:

Canadian Mind Products
Please the feedback from other visitors, or your own feedback about the site.
Contact Roedy. Please feel free to link to this page without explicit permission.

Your face IP:[]
You are visitor number