Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 3623746
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 18, 20262026-05-18T23:25:18+00:00 2026-05-18T23:25:18+00:00

Assuming I want to store n points with integer (x,y) coordinates. I can use

  • 0

Assuming I want to store n points with integer (x,y) coordinates. I can use a 2-d (2Xn) array or use a list / collection / or an array of n objects where each object has 2 integer fields to store the coordinates.
As far as I know is the 2d array option is faster and consumes less memory, but I don’t know why? Detailed explanation or links with details are appreciated.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-18T23:25:18+00:00Added an answer on May 18, 2026 at 11:25 pm

    This is a very broad question, and kinda has many parts to it. First off, this is relative to the language you are working in. Lets take Java as an example.

    When you create an object, it inherits from the main object class. When the object is created, the overhead comes from the fact that the user defined class inherits from Object. The compiler has to virtualize certain method calls in memory so that when you call .equals() or .toString(), the program knows which one to call (that is, your classes’ .equals() or Object‘s .equals()). This is accomplished with a lookup table and determined at runtime with pointers.

    This is called virtualization. Now, in java, an array is actually an object, so you really don’t gain much from an array of arrays. In fact, you might do better using your own class, since you can limit the metadata associated with it. Arrays in java store information on their length.

    However, many of the collections DO have overhead associated with them. ArrayList for example will resize itself and stores metadata about itself in memory, that you might not need. LinkedList has references to other nodes, which is overhead to its actual data.

    Now, what I said is only true about Java. In other OO languages, objects behave differently on the insides, and some may be more/less efficient.

    In a language such as C++, when you allocate an array, you are really just getting a chunck of memory and it is up to you what you want to do with it. In that sense, it might be better. C++ has similar overhead with its objects if you use overriding (keyword virtual) as it will create these virtual lookups in memory.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I want to store a small list of a simple object (containing three strings)
Assuming we have a given object of type Person and want to store its
Assuming that I want to use a hash as an ID instead of a
Assuming a MySQL datastore, when would you NOT want to use memcached in a
Assuming sr is an IEnumerable<string> , I want to use code like this to
I want to display a list of complex, but fixed-size multiline elements, assuming that
Assuming I have an user who has an ID and I want to store
Assuming that we have a set of elements and want to store them in
I want to store a serialized object somewhere and after looking around, realize there
Assuming I have a tree structure UL --LI ---INPUT (checkbox) And I want to

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.