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;
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;
...
java arrays
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.
add a comment |
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;
...
java arrays
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
add a comment |
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;
...
java arrays
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
java arrays
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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
- let the variable fall out of scope or
- assign
null
- 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
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). Whennull
is assigned toouter
, 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
add a comment |
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;
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
add a comment |
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
3
I do not really see the benefit of suggestingSystem#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
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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
- let the variable fall out of scope or
- assign
null
- 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
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). Whennull
is assigned toouter
, 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
add a comment |
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
- let the variable fall out of scope or
- assign
null
- 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
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). Whennull
is assigned toouter
, 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
add a comment |
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
- let the variable fall out of scope or
- assign
null
- 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
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
- let the variable fall out of scope or
- assign
null
- 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
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). Whennull
is assigned toouter
, 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
add a comment |
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). Whennull
is assigned toouter
, 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
add a comment |
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;
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
add a comment |
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;
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
add a comment |
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;
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;
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
3
I do not really see the benefit of suggestingSystem#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
add a comment |
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
3
I do not really see the benefit of suggestingSystem#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
add a comment |
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
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
edited 18 hours ago
answered 18 hours ago
Vaibhav GuptaVaibhav Gupta
477311
477311
3
I do not really see the benefit of suggestingSystem#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
add a comment |
3
I do not really see the benefit of suggestingSystem#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
add a comment |
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