How to delete an array properly in Java [duplicate]Deleting an object in java?List of objects that are still referenced after gc()Is Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”?Create ArrayList from arrayHow do I check if an array includes an object in JavaScript?How to append something to an array?PHP: Delete an element from an arrayHow do I determine whether an array contains a particular value in Java?How do I declare and initialize an array in Java?How do I remove a particular element from an array in JavaScript?How to use foreach with array in JavaScript?Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?

What's the difference between repeating elections every few years and repeating a referendum after a few years?

What do you call words made from common English words?

Was there ever an axiom rendered a theorem?

Check if two datetimes are between two others

Can I legally use front facing blue light in the UK?

How do I create uniquely male characters?

Are objects structures and/or vice versa?

What is GPS' 19 year rollover and does it present a cybersecurity issue?

Are white and non-white police officers equally likely to kill black suspects?

Does a dangling wire really electrocute me if I'm standing in water?

What does 'script /dev/null' do?

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?

Why is my log file so massive? 22gb. I am running log backups

Why airport relocation isn't done gradually?

Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors

Why doesn't a const reference extend the life of a temporary object passed via a function?

New order #4: World

Where else does the Shulchan Aruch quote an authority by name?

Symmetry in quantum mechanics

Eliminate empty elements from a list with a specific pattern

What to wear for invited talk in Canada

How to move the player while also allowing forces to affect it

Shall I use personal or official e-mail account when registering to external websites for work purpose?



How to delete an array properly in Java [duplicate]


Deleting an object in java?List of objects that are still referenced after gc()Is Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”?Create ArrayList from arrayHow do I check if an array includes an object in JavaScript?How to append something to an array?PHP: Delete an element from an arrayHow do I determine whether an array contains a particular value in Java?How do I declare and initialize an array in Java?How do I remove a particular element from an array in JavaScript?How to use foreach with array in JavaScript?Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








11
















This question already has an answer here:



  • Deleting an object in java?

    7 answers



I'm 4 days old in Java and from the tutorials I've searched, the instructors focus a lot of effort in explaining how to allocate a two dimensional array (e.g.) as such:



Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];


... but I've not found any that explains how to delete them.



From what is going on memory-wise, the variable fooArray will point to a block of memory in the heap, in which there are 2 elements. Each of the elements points to another block in the heap as well, which have 3 elements.



That being said, could I just reference the first block of elements and the garbage collector will do the job?



Foo[1] = null; and Foo[2] = null;



Or do I have to null each of the instantiated Foo elements?



Foo[1][1] = null; Foo[1][2] = null; Foo[1][3] = null; ...










share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by TT., Caleth, Mormegil, Iłya Bursov, Andrey Tyukin 9 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 1





    @TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)

    – Chronus
    17 hours ago







  • 4





    Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.

    – TT.
    17 hours ago


















11
















This question already has an answer here:



  • Deleting an object in java?

    7 answers



I'm 4 days old in Java and from the tutorials I've searched, the instructors focus a lot of effort in explaining how to allocate a two dimensional array (e.g.) as such:



Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];


... but I've not found any that explains how to delete them.



From what is going on memory-wise, the variable fooArray will point to a block of memory in the heap, in which there are 2 elements. Each of the elements points to another block in the heap as well, which have 3 elements.



That being said, could I just reference the first block of elements and the garbage collector will do the job?



Foo[1] = null; and Foo[2] = null;



Or do I have to null each of the instantiated Foo elements?



Foo[1][1] = null; Foo[1][2] = null; Foo[1][3] = null; ...










share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by TT., Caleth, Mormegil, Iłya Bursov, Andrey Tyukin 9 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 1





    @TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)

    – Chronus
    17 hours ago







  • 4





    Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.

    – TT.
    17 hours ago














11












11








11


2







This question already has an answer here:



  • Deleting an object in java?

    7 answers



I'm 4 days old in Java and from the tutorials I've searched, the instructors focus a lot of effort in explaining how to allocate a two dimensional array (e.g.) as such:



Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];


... but I've not found any that explains how to delete them.



From what is going on memory-wise, the variable fooArray will point to a block of memory in the heap, in which there are 2 elements. Each of the elements points to another block in the heap as well, which have 3 elements.



That being said, could I just reference the first block of elements and the garbage collector will do the job?



Foo[1] = null; and Foo[2] = null;



Or do I have to null each of the instantiated Foo elements?



Foo[1][1] = null; Foo[1][2] = null; Foo[1][3] = null; ...










share|improve this question

















This question already has an answer here:



  • Deleting an object in java?

    7 answers



I'm 4 days old in Java and from the tutorials I've searched, the instructors focus a lot of effort in explaining how to allocate a two dimensional array (e.g.) as such:



Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];


... but I've not found any that explains how to delete them.



From what is going on memory-wise, the variable fooArray will point to a block of memory in the heap, in which there are 2 elements. Each of the elements points to another block in the heap as well, which have 3 elements.



That being said, could I just reference the first block of elements and the garbage collector will do the job?



Foo[1] = null; and Foo[2] = null;



Or do I have to null each of the instantiated Foo elements?



Foo[1][1] = null; Foo[1][2] = null; Foo[1][3] = null; ...





This question already has an answer here:



  • Deleting an object in java?

    7 answers







java arrays






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 18 hours ago









Jason

9,62733545




9,62733545










asked 18 hours ago









ChronusChronus

1097




1097




marked as duplicate by TT., Caleth, Mormegil, Iłya Bursov, Andrey Tyukin 9 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









marked as duplicate by TT., Caleth, Mormegil, Iłya Bursov, Andrey Tyukin 9 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









  • 1





    @TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)

    – Chronus
    17 hours ago







  • 4





    Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.

    – TT.
    17 hours ago













  • 1





    @TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)

    – Chronus
    17 hours ago







  • 4





    Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.

    – TT.
    17 hours ago








1




1





@TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)

– Chronus
17 hours ago






@TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)

– Chronus
17 hours ago





4




4





Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.

– TT.
17 hours ago






Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.

– TT.
17 hours ago













3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















15














Explantion



You can not explicitly delete something in Java. It is the garbage collectors job to do that. It will delete anything which is not used anymore by anyone. So either



  1. let the variable fall out of scope or

  2. assign null

  3. or any other instance to it.

Then the array instance (as well as its subarrays) is not referenced anymore and the garbage collector will delete it eventually.




References



To understand why re-assigning the outer array is enough to also delete the inner arrays, you need to understand how they are referenced. Again, the garbage collector will delete anything which is not referenced. So let's take a look at an array such as:



int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;


We have 4 array instances. One is of type int[][] and three of type int[]. Also, we have one variable outer. The instances are referenced as follows:



 ___> 1, 2
|
outer --> int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|___> 5, 6


So by deleting outer, nobody references int[][] anymore. The garbage collector can now delete it. But that also removes all references to the inner arrays, so the garbage collector can now also delete them.



Now assume that you would reference one of the inner arrays by another variable:



int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
int[] thirdInner = outer[2];
other = null; // remove the reference


The situation is now



outer --> null

___> 1, 2
|
int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|______> 5, 6
|
thirdInner _______________|


So the garbage collector will now delete the outer array int[][], which also removes all references to the first and second inner array. But the third is still referenced by thirdInner, so after garbage collection we have:



outer --> null
thirdInner --> 5, 6





share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    "Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".

    – Boris the Spider
    15 hours ago











  • That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.

    – Zabuza
    14 hours ago











  • @BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".

    – bwoebi
    13 hours ago






  • 1





    "Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). When null is assigned to outer, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.

    – Boann
    8 hours ago


















13














At some point after the array goes out of scope, the garbage collector will reclaim the memory if there are no other references to it.



If you want to null your reference before the variable goes out of scope (keep in mind that if some other code has this reference, it won't get garbage collected):



Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];

...

// this will null the reference to the array
fooArray = null;





share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.

    – Konrad Rudolph
    16 hours ago












  • Good point - edited.

    – Jason
    3 hours ago


















2














Unlike C, Java provides automatic garbage collection,which will clear the array for you as it becomes unreachable(i.e goes out of scope).If you want you can make the array as null so that the memory location becomes unreachable.



 Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
.
.
.
fooArray = null;
System.gc();


This gc call doesn't ensure that JVM will run garbage collector but it suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects






share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    I do not really see the benefit of suggesting System#gc. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).

    – Zabuza
    18 hours ago












  • I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work

    – Vaibhav Gupta
    18 hours ago






  • 4





    @Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.

    – Jonathan Rosenne
    17 hours ago

















3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









15














Explantion



You can not explicitly delete something in Java. It is the garbage collectors job to do that. It will delete anything which is not used anymore by anyone. So either



  1. let the variable fall out of scope or

  2. assign null

  3. or any other instance to it.

Then the array instance (as well as its subarrays) is not referenced anymore and the garbage collector will delete it eventually.




References



To understand why re-assigning the outer array is enough to also delete the inner arrays, you need to understand how they are referenced. Again, the garbage collector will delete anything which is not referenced. So let's take a look at an array such as:



int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;


We have 4 array instances. One is of type int[][] and three of type int[]. Also, we have one variable outer. The instances are referenced as follows:



 ___> 1, 2
|
outer --> int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|___> 5, 6


So by deleting outer, nobody references int[][] anymore. The garbage collector can now delete it. But that also removes all references to the inner arrays, so the garbage collector can now also delete them.



Now assume that you would reference one of the inner arrays by another variable:



int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
int[] thirdInner = outer[2];
other = null; // remove the reference


The situation is now



outer --> null

___> 1, 2
|
int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|______> 5, 6
|
thirdInner _______________|


So the garbage collector will now delete the outer array int[][], which also removes all references to the first and second inner array. But the third is still referenced by thirdInner, so after garbage collection we have:



outer --> null
thirdInner --> 5, 6





share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    "Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".

    – Boris the Spider
    15 hours ago











  • That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.

    – Zabuza
    14 hours ago











  • @BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".

    – bwoebi
    13 hours ago






  • 1





    "Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). When null is assigned to outer, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.

    – Boann
    8 hours ago















15














Explantion



You can not explicitly delete something in Java. It is the garbage collectors job to do that. It will delete anything which is not used anymore by anyone. So either



  1. let the variable fall out of scope or

  2. assign null

  3. or any other instance to it.

Then the array instance (as well as its subarrays) is not referenced anymore and the garbage collector will delete it eventually.




References



To understand why re-assigning the outer array is enough to also delete the inner arrays, you need to understand how they are referenced. Again, the garbage collector will delete anything which is not referenced. So let's take a look at an array such as:



int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;


We have 4 array instances. One is of type int[][] and three of type int[]. Also, we have one variable outer. The instances are referenced as follows:



 ___> 1, 2
|
outer --> int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|___> 5, 6


So by deleting outer, nobody references int[][] anymore. The garbage collector can now delete it. But that also removes all references to the inner arrays, so the garbage collector can now also delete them.



Now assume that you would reference one of the inner arrays by another variable:



int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
int[] thirdInner = outer[2];
other = null; // remove the reference


The situation is now



outer --> null

___> 1, 2
|
int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|______> 5, 6
|
thirdInner _______________|


So the garbage collector will now delete the outer array int[][], which also removes all references to the first and second inner array. But the third is still referenced by thirdInner, so after garbage collection we have:



outer --> null
thirdInner --> 5, 6





share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    "Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".

    – Boris the Spider
    15 hours ago











  • That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.

    – Zabuza
    14 hours ago











  • @BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".

    – bwoebi
    13 hours ago






  • 1





    "Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). When null is assigned to outer, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.

    – Boann
    8 hours ago













15












15








15







Explantion



You can not explicitly delete something in Java. It is the garbage collectors job to do that. It will delete anything which is not used anymore by anyone. So either



  1. let the variable fall out of scope or

  2. assign null

  3. or any other instance to it.

Then the array instance (as well as its subarrays) is not referenced anymore and the garbage collector will delete it eventually.




References



To understand why re-assigning the outer array is enough to also delete the inner arrays, you need to understand how they are referenced. Again, the garbage collector will delete anything which is not referenced. So let's take a look at an array such as:



int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;


We have 4 array instances. One is of type int[][] and three of type int[]. Also, we have one variable outer. The instances are referenced as follows:



 ___> 1, 2
|
outer --> int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|___> 5, 6


So by deleting outer, nobody references int[][] anymore. The garbage collector can now delete it. But that also removes all references to the inner arrays, so the garbage collector can now also delete them.



Now assume that you would reference one of the inner arrays by another variable:



int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
int[] thirdInner = outer[2];
other = null; // remove the reference


The situation is now



outer --> null

___> 1, 2
|
int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|______> 5, 6
|
thirdInner _______________|


So the garbage collector will now delete the outer array int[][], which also removes all references to the first and second inner array. But the third is still referenced by thirdInner, so after garbage collection we have:



outer --> null
thirdInner --> 5, 6





share|improve this answer















Explantion



You can not explicitly delete something in Java. It is the garbage collectors job to do that. It will delete anything which is not used anymore by anyone. So either



  1. let the variable fall out of scope or

  2. assign null

  3. or any other instance to it.

Then the array instance (as well as its subarrays) is not referenced anymore and the garbage collector will delete it eventually.




References



To understand why re-assigning the outer array is enough to also delete the inner arrays, you need to understand how they are referenced. Again, the garbage collector will delete anything which is not referenced. So let's take a look at an array such as:



int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;


We have 4 array instances. One is of type int[][] and three of type int[]. Also, we have one variable outer. The instances are referenced as follows:



 ___> 1, 2
|
outer --> int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|___> 5, 6


So by deleting outer, nobody references int[][] anymore. The garbage collector can now delete it. But that also removes all references to the inner arrays, so the garbage collector can now also delete them.



Now assume that you would reference one of the inner arrays by another variable:



int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
int[] thirdInner = outer[2];
other = null; // remove the reference


The situation is now



outer --> null

___> 1, 2
|
int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|______> 5, 6
|
thirdInner _______________|


So the garbage collector will now delete the outer array int[][], which also removes all references to the first and second inner array. But the third is still referenced by thirdInner, so after garbage collection we have:



outer --> null
thirdInner --> 5, 6






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 17 hours ago

























answered 18 hours ago









ZabuzaZabuza

12.1k52744




12.1k52744







  • 3





    "Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".

    – Boris the Spider
    15 hours ago











  • That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.

    – Zabuza
    14 hours ago











  • @BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".

    – bwoebi
    13 hours ago






  • 1





    "Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). When null is assigned to outer, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.

    – Boann
    8 hours ago












  • 3





    "Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".

    – Boris the Spider
    15 hours ago











  • That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.

    – Zabuza
    14 hours ago











  • @BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".

    – bwoebi
    13 hours ago






  • 1





    "Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). When null is assigned to outer, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.

    – Boann
    8 hours ago







3




3





"Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".

– Boris the Spider
15 hours ago





"Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".

– Boris the Spider
15 hours ago













That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.

– Zabuza
14 hours ago





That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.

– Zabuza
14 hours ago













@BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".

– bwoebi
13 hours ago





@BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".

– bwoebi
13 hours ago




1




1





"Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). When null is assigned to outer, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.

– Boann
8 hours ago





"Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). When null is assigned to outer, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.

– Boann
8 hours ago













13














At some point after the array goes out of scope, the garbage collector will reclaim the memory if there are no other references to it.



If you want to null your reference before the variable goes out of scope (keep in mind that if some other code has this reference, it won't get garbage collected):



Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];

...

// this will null the reference to the array
fooArray = null;





share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.

    – Konrad Rudolph
    16 hours ago












  • Good point - edited.

    – Jason
    3 hours ago















13














At some point after the array goes out of scope, the garbage collector will reclaim the memory if there are no other references to it.



If you want to null your reference before the variable goes out of scope (keep in mind that if some other code has this reference, it won't get garbage collected):



Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];

...

// this will null the reference to the array
fooArray = null;





share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.

    – Konrad Rudolph
    16 hours ago












  • Good point - edited.

    – Jason
    3 hours ago













13












13








13







At some point after the array goes out of scope, the garbage collector will reclaim the memory if there are no other references to it.



If you want to null your reference before the variable goes out of scope (keep in mind that if some other code has this reference, it won't get garbage collected):



Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];

...

// this will null the reference to the array
fooArray = null;





share|improve this answer















At some point after the array goes out of scope, the garbage collector will reclaim the memory if there are no other references to it.



If you want to null your reference before the variable goes out of scope (keep in mind that if some other code has this reference, it won't get garbage collected):



Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];

...

// this will null the reference to the array
fooArray = null;






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago

























answered 18 hours ago









JasonJason

9,62733545




9,62733545







  • 3





    Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.

    – Konrad Rudolph
    16 hours ago












  • Good point - edited.

    – Jason
    3 hours ago












  • 3





    Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.

    – Konrad Rudolph
    16 hours ago












  • Good point - edited.

    – Jason
    3 hours ago







3




3





Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.

– Konrad Rudolph
16 hours ago






Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.

– Konrad Rudolph
16 hours ago














Good point - edited.

– Jason
3 hours ago





Good point - edited.

– Jason
3 hours ago











2














Unlike C, Java provides automatic garbage collection,which will clear the array for you as it becomes unreachable(i.e goes out of scope).If you want you can make the array as null so that the memory location becomes unreachable.



 Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
.
.
.
fooArray = null;
System.gc();


This gc call doesn't ensure that JVM will run garbage collector but it suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects






share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    I do not really see the benefit of suggesting System#gc. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).

    – Zabuza
    18 hours ago












  • I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work

    – Vaibhav Gupta
    18 hours ago






  • 4





    @Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.

    – Jonathan Rosenne
    17 hours ago















2














Unlike C, Java provides automatic garbage collection,which will clear the array for you as it becomes unreachable(i.e goes out of scope).If you want you can make the array as null so that the memory location becomes unreachable.



 Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
.
.
.
fooArray = null;
System.gc();


This gc call doesn't ensure that JVM will run garbage collector but it suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects






share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    I do not really see the benefit of suggesting System#gc. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).

    – Zabuza
    18 hours ago












  • I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work

    – Vaibhav Gupta
    18 hours ago






  • 4





    @Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.

    – Jonathan Rosenne
    17 hours ago













2












2








2







Unlike C, Java provides automatic garbage collection,which will clear the array for you as it becomes unreachable(i.e goes out of scope).If you want you can make the array as null so that the memory location becomes unreachable.



 Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
.
.
.
fooArray = null;
System.gc();


This gc call doesn't ensure that JVM will run garbage collector but it suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects






share|improve this answer















Unlike C, Java provides automatic garbage collection,which will clear the array for you as it becomes unreachable(i.e goes out of scope).If you want you can make the array as null so that the memory location becomes unreachable.



 Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
.
.
.
fooArray = null;
System.gc();


This gc call doesn't ensure that JVM will run garbage collector but it suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 18 hours ago

























answered 18 hours ago









Vaibhav GuptaVaibhav Gupta

477311




477311







  • 3





    I do not really see the benefit of suggesting System#gc. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).

    – Zabuza
    18 hours ago












  • I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work

    – Vaibhav Gupta
    18 hours ago






  • 4





    @Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.

    – Jonathan Rosenne
    17 hours ago












  • 3





    I do not really see the benefit of suggesting System#gc. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).

    – Zabuza
    18 hours ago












  • I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work

    – Vaibhav Gupta
    18 hours ago






  • 4





    @Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.

    – Jonathan Rosenne
    17 hours ago







3




3





I do not really see the benefit of suggesting System#gc. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).

– Zabuza
18 hours ago






I do not really see the benefit of suggesting System#gc. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).

– Zabuza
18 hours ago














I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work

– Vaibhav Gupta
18 hours ago





I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work

– Vaibhav Gupta
18 hours ago




4




4





@Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.

– Jonathan Rosenne
17 hours ago





@Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.

– Jonathan Rosenne
17 hours ago



Popular posts from this blog

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單