Home > Programming > What you don’t want to know about Java boxed primitives

What you don’t want to know about Java boxed primitives

In my last post I used a simple calculation to argument that a List containing 1024 Integer objects will take at least 8kb on a 32bit system, and at least 12kb on a 64bit system. I then also argued that additional storage for 1024 Java objects is needed (some of them might be cached, but let’s talk about that later). Unfortunately however, I did not investigate about how much that would be until Ortwin Glück, who runs the Java Anti-Patterns page, wrote me an email with some very interesting numbers. So I started doing some research:

How can you reliably obtain the size of a random Java object? Well, there are basically two answers: You can use a hack that is outlined here, or you can use Instrumentation.getObjectSize(Object obj). Still, obtaining an implementation of Instrumentation and transversing object graphs is far more work than I want to invest. Luckily there is java.sizeOf which does exactly that for us. java.sizeOf basically is a Java agent and a library to access the functionality of it, packaged into a single class called SizeOf. To see what it can do, I wrote this small program:

package com.wordpress.mlangc.sizeof;

import java.lang.reflect.Array;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.List;

import net.sourceforge.sizeof.SizeOf;

public class TestSizeOf
    private static final String WTF = ":-O";
    private static final int SIZE = 1024;
    public static void main(final String[] args)
        printSize(new Object());
        printSize(new int[SIZE]);
        List<Integer> intList = new ArrayList<Integer>(SIZE);
        for(int i = 0; i != SIZE; ++i)
    private static void printSize(final Object obj)
        System.out.println("sizeof(" + describeObject(obj) + "): " 
                + SizeOf.humanReadable(SizeOf.deepSizeOf((obj))));
    private static String describeObject(final Object obj)
        Class<?> clazz = obj.getClass();
        StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(clazz.getCanonicalName());
                throw new AssertionError(WTF);
            sb.insert(sb.length() - 1, Array.getLength(obj));
        else if(obj instanceof Collection<?>)
            Collection<?> collection = (Collection<?>) obj;
        return sb.toString();
    private static String extractGenericTypeFromCollectionHack(final Collection<?> collection)
        //It is impossible to do this reliably because of type erasure;
        //for our purposes however, this simple hack,
        //that just inspects the first element, should do nicely.
            return "?";
        return collection.iterator().next().getClass().getCanonicalName();

Then I executed the code above like this (the -javaagent option is important):

$ java -javaagent:${LIB_PATH}/SizeOf.jar com.wordpress.mlangc.sizeof.TestSizeOf
JAVAGENT: call premain instrumentation for class SizeOf
sizeof(java.lang.Object): 16.0b
sizeof(java.lang.Integer): 24.0b
sizeof(int[1024]): 4.0234375Kb
sizeof(java.util.ArrayList<java.lang.Integer>[1024]): 32.0625Kb

So, yes a plain and mostly useless Java Object consumes 16bytes on my system (x86_64 with sun-jdk-1.6.0_17) – thats already 4 int values! An Integer object swallows 24bytes (I would have guessed 20 = 16 + 4 – maybe this has something to do with alignment?), which is 6 int values. An array of 1024 int values needs 4kb as it should, but an ArrayList<Integer> swallows 32kb = 24kb + 8kb and therefore consumes unbelievable 8 times more memory than the array.

So what do I suggest considering the disturbing facts outlined above?

  • Prefer primitive types to boxed primitives as suggested by EffJava2 Item 49. Not only are they more efficient, the fact that they cannot be null makes them more attractive for other reasons too (albeit not always).
  • If you use wrapped primitives, prefer autoboxing or the Foo.valueOf(foo f) factory methods to direct constructors calls, as this is (citing the Javadocs) “likely to yield significantly better space and time performance by caching frequently requested values”. This is especially important for Boolean, where autoboxing or valueOf(…) never creates a new object.
  • Be aware of the fact, that Collections containing boxed primitives are huge memory wasters compared to arrays, even when caching is considered, but keep in mind, that premature optimization is the root of all evil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: