Home/ Questions/Q 6813943
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-26T20:37:45+00:00

I am aware that memory allocation is not explicitly required in Java , as

  • 0

I am aware that memory allocation is not explicitly required in Java, as the JVM handles allocation behind the scenes. Even though I am not required to allocate memory, for the sake of testing a memory greedy application, how would I be able to hold objects of certain numbers of bytes?

The current solution is to instantiate arrays of the primitive ‘byte’. If I want to hold 5 MB worth of objects, I create an array of bytes.

byte[] b = new byte[5000000];

Is there a better way to explicitly allocate memory in a Java JVM, if only for the sake creating / releasing objects of known size for some unit tests?

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    There isn’t really a better way of doing it. ‘new’ is the only way to explicitly occupy memory (except allocating stack by calling a method, for example). 

    byte b = new byte[MEM_SIZE];

    is the most controllable way of doing it. It won’t allocate exactly 5000000 bytes, thanks to object overhead, but it’s pretty close.

    • 0