Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
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.
The JDK ships with CopyOnWrite* implementations for Set and List, but none for Map and I’ve often lamented this fact. I know there are other collections implementations out there that have them, but it would be nice if one shipped as standard. It seems like an obvious omission and I’m wondering if there was a good reason for it. Anyone any idea why this was left out?
I guess this depends on your use case, but why would you need a CopyOnWriteMap when you already have a ConcurrentHashMap?
For a plain lookup table with many readers and only one or few updates it is a good fit.
Compared to a copy on write collection:
Read concurrency:
Equal to a copy on write collection. Several readers can retrieve elements from the map concurrently in a lock-free fashion.
Write concurrency:
Better concurrency than the copy on write collections that basically serialize updates (one update at a time). Using a concurrent hash map you have a good chance of doing several updates concurrently. If your hash keys are evenly distributed.
If you do want to have the effect of a copy on write map, you can always initialize a ConcurrentHashMap with a concurrency level of 1.