Java - ByteBuffer or ArrayList<Byte>?

Question

Recently I created a wrapper to read and write data into a byte array. To do it, I've been using an ArrayList<Byte>, but I was wondering if this is the most efficent way to do it, because:

addAll() doesn't work with byte arrays (even using Arrays.asList(), which returns me List<Byte[]>). To fix it I'm just looping and adding a byte at each loop, but I suppose this supposes a lot of function calls and so it has a performance cost.
The same happens for getting a byte[] from the ArrayList. I can't cast from Byte[] to byte[], so I have to use a loop for it.
I suppose storing Byte instead of byte uses more memory.

I know ByteArrayInputStream and ByteArrayOutputStream could be used for this, but it has some inconvenients:

I wanted to implement methods for reading different data types in different byte order (for example, readInt, readLEInt, readUInt, etc), while those classes only can read / write a byte or a byte array. This isn't really a problem because I could fix that in the wrapper. But here comes the second problem.
I wanted to be able to write and read at the same time because I'm using this to decompress some files. And so to create a wrapper for it I would need to include both ByteArrayInputStream and ByteArrayOutputStream. I don't know if those could be syncronized in some way or I'd have to write the entire data of one to the other each time I wrote to the wrapper.

And so, here comes my question: would using a ByteBuffer be more efficient? I know you can take integers, floats, etc from it, even being able to change the byte order. What I was wondering is if there is a real performance change between using a ByteBuffer and a ArrayList<Byte>.

If you need dynamically sized buffer, then look at my comment, use ByteArrayOutputStream, extend it and make use of fileds buf and count, to make some fast reading methods. It has adventage, that it has dynamical size; — Krzysztof Cichocki
– Krzysztof Cichocki, Commented Jul 16, 2015 at 12:34

Joop Eggen · Accepted Answer · 2015-07-16 12:21:10Z

3

Definitely ByteBuffer or ByteArrayOutputStream. In your case ByteBuffer seems fine. Inspect the Javadoc, as it has nice methods, For putInt/getInt and such, you might want to set order (of those 4 bytes)

byteBuffer.order(ByteBuffer.LITTLE_ENDIAN);

With files you could use getChannel() or variants and then use a MappedByteBuffer.

A ByteBuffer may wrap a byte array, or allocate.

answered Jul 16, 2015 at 12:21

Joop Eggen

110k8 gold badges89 silver badges142 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

lance-java · Accepted Answer · 2015-07-16 12:24:36Z

1

Keep in mind that every object has overhead associated with it including a bit of memory per object and garbage collection once it goes out of scope.

Using List<Byte> would mean creating / garbage collecting an object per byte which is very wasteful.

answered Jul 16, 2015 at 12:24

lance-java

29.4k6 gold badges73 silver badges114 bronze badges

Comments

Krzysztof Cichocki · Accepted Answer · 2021-03-25 15:35:24Z

1

ByteBuffer is a wrapper class around a byte array, it doesn't have dynamical size like ArrayList, but it consumes less memory per byte and is faster. If you know the size you need, then use ByteBuffer, if you don't, then you could use ByteArrayOutputStream (and maybe wrapped by ObjectOutputStream, it has some methods to write different kinds of data). To read the data you have written to ByteArrayOutputStream you can extend the ByteArrayOutputStream, and then you can access the fields buf[] and count, those fields are protected, so you can access them from extending class, it look like:

public class ByteArrayOutputStream extends OutputStream {

    /**
     * The buffer where data is stored.
     */
    protected byte buf[];
    /**
     * The number of valid bytes in the buffer.
     */
    protected int count;
...
}


public class ReadableBAOS extends ByteArrayOutputStream{
    public byte readByte(int index) {
        if (count<index) {
            throw new IndexOutOfBoundsException();
        }
        return buf[index];
    }
}

so you can make some methods in your extending class to read some bytes from the underlying buffer without the need to make an copy of its content each time like toByteArray() method do.

edited Mar 25, 2021 at 15:35

answered Jul 16, 2015 at 12:29

Krzysztof Cichocki

6,4421 gold badge20 silver badges33 bronze badges

1 Comment

Kayaman Over a year ago

ByteBuffer is not a wrapper class for byte[] although you can wrap a byte[] with it. If you use allocateDirect you'll get native memory instead of a byte[].

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Java - ByteBuffer or ArrayList<Byte>?

3 Answers 3

Comments

Comments

1 Comment

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

3 Answers 3

Comments

Comments

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related