How to delete an array properly in Java [duplicate] The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InDeleting an object in java?List of objects that are still referenced after gc()Is Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”?Create ArrayList from arrayHow do I check if an array includes an object in JavaScript?How to append something to an array?PHP: Delete an element from an arrayHow do I determine whether an array contains a particular value in Java?How do I declare and initialize an array in Java?How do I remove a particular element from an array in JavaScript?How to use foreach with array in JavaScript?Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?
Why couldn't they take pictures of a closer black hole?
How to obtain a position of last non-zero element
Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?
How can I define good in a religion that claims no moral authority?
What do I do when my TA workload is more than expected?
I am an eight letter word. What am I?
How to translate "being like"?
ODD NUMBER in Cognitive Linguistics of WILLIAM CROFT and D. ALAN CRUSE
Straighten subgroup lattice
Did Scotland spend $250,000 for the slogan "Welcome to Scotland"?
What do these terms in Caesar's Gallic wars mean?
Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit
How can I add encounters in the Lost Mine of Phandelver campaign without giving PCs too much XP?
How to charge AirPods to keep battery healthy?
Falsification in Math vs Science
Inverse Relationship Between Precision and Recall
What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?
How do PCB vias affect signal quality?
Will it cause any balance problems to have PCs level up and gain the benefits of a long rest mid-fight?
How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?
What is this business jet?
Star Trek - X-shaped Item on Regula/Orbital Office Starbases
What is this sharp, curved notch on my knife for?
The phrase "to the numbers born"?
How to delete an array properly in Java [duplicate]
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InDeleting an object in java?List of objects that are still referenced after gc()Is Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”?Create ArrayList from arrayHow do I check if an array includes an object in JavaScript?How to append something to an array?PHP: Delete an element from an arrayHow do I determine whether an array contains a particular value in Java?How do I declare and initialize an array in Java?How do I remove a particular element from an array in JavaScript?How to use foreach with array in JavaScript?Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
This question already has an answer here:
Deleting an object in java?
7 answers
I'm 4 days old in Java and from the tutorials I've searched, the instructors focus a lot of effort in explaining how to allocate a two dimensional array (e.g.) as such:
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
... but I've not found any that explains how to delete them.
From what is going on memory-wise, the variable fooArray
will point to a block of memory in the heap, in which there are 2 elements. Each of the elements points to another block in the heap as well, which have 3 elements.
That being said, could I just reference the first block of elements and the garbage collector will do the job?
Foo[1] = null;
and Foo[2] = null;
Or do I have to null each of the instantiated Foo elements?
Foo[1][1] = null;
Foo[1][2] = null;
Foo[1][3] = null;
...
java arrays
marked as duplicate by TT., Caleth, Mormegil, Iłya Bursov, Andrey Tyukin Apr 8 at 16:25
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Deleting an object in java?
7 answers
I'm 4 days old in Java and from the tutorials I've searched, the instructors focus a lot of effort in explaining how to allocate a two dimensional array (e.g.) as such:
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
... but I've not found any that explains how to delete them.
From what is going on memory-wise, the variable fooArray
will point to a block of memory in the heap, in which there are 2 elements. Each of the elements points to another block in the heap as well, which have 3 elements.
That being said, could I just reference the first block of elements and the garbage collector will do the job?
Foo[1] = null;
and Foo[2] = null;
Or do I have to null each of the instantiated Foo elements?
Foo[1][1] = null;
Foo[1][2] = null;
Foo[1][3] = null;
...
java arrays
marked as duplicate by TT., Caleth, Mormegil, Iłya Bursov, Andrey Tyukin Apr 8 at 16:25
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
1
@TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)
– Chronus
Apr 8 at 7:38
4
Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.
– TT.
Apr 8 at 7:49
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Deleting an object in java?
7 answers
I'm 4 days old in Java and from the tutorials I've searched, the instructors focus a lot of effort in explaining how to allocate a two dimensional array (e.g.) as such:
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
... but I've not found any that explains how to delete them.
From what is going on memory-wise, the variable fooArray
will point to a block of memory in the heap, in which there are 2 elements. Each of the elements points to another block in the heap as well, which have 3 elements.
That being said, could I just reference the first block of elements and the garbage collector will do the job?
Foo[1] = null;
and Foo[2] = null;
Or do I have to null each of the instantiated Foo elements?
Foo[1][1] = null;
Foo[1][2] = null;
Foo[1][3] = null;
...
java arrays
This question already has an answer here:
Deleting an object in java?
7 answers
I'm 4 days old in Java and from the tutorials I've searched, the instructors focus a lot of effort in explaining how to allocate a two dimensional array (e.g.) as such:
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
... but I've not found any that explains how to delete them.
From what is going on memory-wise, the variable fooArray
will point to a block of memory in the heap, in which there are 2 elements. Each of the elements points to another block in the heap as well, which have 3 elements.
That being said, could I just reference the first block of elements and the garbage collector will do the job?
Foo[1] = null;
and Foo[2] = null;
Or do I have to null each of the instantiated Foo elements?
Foo[1][1] = null;
Foo[1][2] = null;
Foo[1][3] = null;
...
This question already has an answer here:
Deleting an object in java?
7 answers
java arrays
java arrays
edited Apr 8 at 7:18


Jason
9,69733545
9,69733545
asked Apr 8 at 7:07
ChronusChronus
1147
1147
marked as duplicate by TT., Caleth, Mormegil, Iłya Bursov, Andrey Tyukin Apr 8 at 16:25
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by TT., Caleth, Mormegil, Iłya Bursov, Andrey Tyukin Apr 8 at 16:25
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
1
@TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)
– Chronus
Apr 8 at 7:38
4
Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.
– TT.
Apr 8 at 7:49
add a comment |
1
@TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)
– Chronus
Apr 8 at 7:38
4
Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.
– TT.
Apr 8 at 7:49
1
1
@TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)
– Chronus
Apr 8 at 7:38
@TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)
– Chronus
Apr 8 at 7:38
4
4
Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.
– TT.
Apr 8 at 7:49
Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.
– TT.
Apr 8 at 7:49
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Explanation
You can not explicitly delete something in Java. It is the garbage collectors job to do that. It will delete anything which is not used anymore by anyone. So either
- let the variable fall out of scope or
- assign
null
- or any other instance to it.
Then the array instance (as well as its subarrays) is not referenced anymore and the garbage collector will delete it eventually.
References
To understand why re-assigning the outer array is enough to also delete the inner arrays, you need to understand how they are referenced. Again, the garbage collector will delete anything which is not referenced. So let's take a look at an array such as:
int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
We have 4 array instances. One is of type int[][]
and three of type int[]
. Also, we have one variable outer
. The instances are referenced as follows:
___> 1, 2
|
outer --> int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|___> 5, 6
So by deleting outer
, nobody references int[][]
anymore. The garbage collector can now delete it. But that also removes all references to the inner arrays, so the garbage collector can now also delete them.
Now assume that you would reference one of the inner arrays by another variable:
int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
int[] thirdInner = outer[2];
other = null; // remove the reference
The situation is now
outer --> null
___> 1, 2
|
int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|______> 5, 6
|
thirdInner _______________|
So the garbage collector will now delete the outer array int[][]
, which also removes all references to the first and second inner array. But the third is still referenced by thirdInner
, so after garbage collection we have:
outer --> null
thirdInner --> 5, 6
3
"Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".
– Boris the Spider
Apr 8 at 10:26
That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 10:34
@BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".
– bwoebi
Apr 8 at 12:25
2
"Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). Whennull
is assigned toouter
, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.
– Boann
Apr 8 at 16:34
1
Be my guest and correct the terms. But I think it is better to keep it simple and then add a section which has a reference to some deeper explanation, quickly summarizing how it works in two sentences.
– Zabuza
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
At some point after the array goes out of scope, the garbage collector will reclaim the memory if there are no other references to it.
If you want to null your reference before the variable goes out of scope (keep in mind that if some other code has this reference, it won't get garbage collected):
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
...
// this will null the reference to the array
fooArray = null;
3
Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 8 at 9:24
Good point - edited.
– Jason
Apr 8 at 22:24
add a comment |
Unlike C, Java provides automatic garbage collection,which will clear the array for you as it becomes unreachable(i.e goes out of scope).If you want you can make the array as null so that the memory location becomes unreachable.
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
.
.
.
fooArray = null;
System.gc();
This gc call doesn't ensure that JVM will run garbage collector but it suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects
4
I do not really see the benefit of suggestingSystem#gc
. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 7:15
I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work
– Vaibhav Gupta
Apr 8 at 7:18
5
@Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.
– Jonathan Rosenne
Apr 8 at 7:52
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Explanation
You can not explicitly delete something in Java. It is the garbage collectors job to do that. It will delete anything which is not used anymore by anyone. So either
- let the variable fall out of scope or
- assign
null
- or any other instance to it.
Then the array instance (as well as its subarrays) is not referenced anymore and the garbage collector will delete it eventually.
References
To understand why re-assigning the outer array is enough to also delete the inner arrays, you need to understand how they are referenced. Again, the garbage collector will delete anything which is not referenced. So let's take a look at an array such as:
int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
We have 4 array instances. One is of type int[][]
and three of type int[]
. Also, we have one variable outer
. The instances are referenced as follows:
___> 1, 2
|
outer --> int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|___> 5, 6
So by deleting outer
, nobody references int[][]
anymore. The garbage collector can now delete it. But that also removes all references to the inner arrays, so the garbage collector can now also delete them.
Now assume that you would reference one of the inner arrays by another variable:
int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
int[] thirdInner = outer[2];
other = null; // remove the reference
The situation is now
outer --> null
___> 1, 2
|
int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|______> 5, 6
|
thirdInner _______________|
So the garbage collector will now delete the outer array int[][]
, which also removes all references to the first and second inner array. But the third is still referenced by thirdInner
, so after garbage collection we have:
outer --> null
thirdInner --> 5, 6
3
"Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".
– Boris the Spider
Apr 8 at 10:26
That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 10:34
@BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".
– bwoebi
Apr 8 at 12:25
2
"Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). Whennull
is assigned toouter
, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.
– Boann
Apr 8 at 16:34
1
Be my guest and correct the terms. But I think it is better to keep it simple and then add a section which has a reference to some deeper explanation, quickly summarizing how it works in two sentences.
– Zabuza
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
Explanation
You can not explicitly delete something in Java. It is the garbage collectors job to do that. It will delete anything which is not used anymore by anyone. So either
- let the variable fall out of scope or
- assign
null
- or any other instance to it.
Then the array instance (as well as its subarrays) is not referenced anymore and the garbage collector will delete it eventually.
References
To understand why re-assigning the outer array is enough to also delete the inner arrays, you need to understand how they are referenced. Again, the garbage collector will delete anything which is not referenced. So let's take a look at an array such as:
int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
We have 4 array instances. One is of type int[][]
and three of type int[]
. Also, we have one variable outer
. The instances are referenced as follows:
___> 1, 2
|
outer --> int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|___> 5, 6
So by deleting outer
, nobody references int[][]
anymore. The garbage collector can now delete it. But that also removes all references to the inner arrays, so the garbage collector can now also delete them.
Now assume that you would reference one of the inner arrays by another variable:
int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
int[] thirdInner = outer[2];
other = null; // remove the reference
The situation is now
outer --> null
___> 1, 2
|
int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|______> 5, 6
|
thirdInner _______________|
So the garbage collector will now delete the outer array int[][]
, which also removes all references to the first and second inner array. But the third is still referenced by thirdInner
, so after garbage collection we have:
outer --> null
thirdInner --> 5, 6
3
"Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".
– Boris the Spider
Apr 8 at 10:26
That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 10:34
@BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".
– bwoebi
Apr 8 at 12:25
2
"Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). Whennull
is assigned toouter
, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.
– Boann
Apr 8 at 16:34
1
Be my guest and correct the terms. But I think it is better to keep it simple and then add a section which has a reference to some deeper explanation, quickly summarizing how it works in two sentences.
– Zabuza
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
Explanation
You can not explicitly delete something in Java. It is the garbage collectors job to do that. It will delete anything which is not used anymore by anyone. So either
- let the variable fall out of scope or
- assign
null
- or any other instance to it.
Then the array instance (as well as its subarrays) is not referenced anymore and the garbage collector will delete it eventually.
References
To understand why re-assigning the outer array is enough to also delete the inner arrays, you need to understand how they are referenced. Again, the garbage collector will delete anything which is not referenced. So let's take a look at an array such as:
int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
We have 4 array instances. One is of type int[][]
and three of type int[]
. Also, we have one variable outer
. The instances are referenced as follows:
___> 1, 2
|
outer --> int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|___> 5, 6
So by deleting outer
, nobody references int[][]
anymore. The garbage collector can now delete it. But that also removes all references to the inner arrays, so the garbage collector can now also delete them.
Now assume that you would reference one of the inner arrays by another variable:
int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
int[] thirdInner = outer[2];
other = null; // remove the reference
The situation is now
outer --> null
___> 1, 2
|
int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|______> 5, 6
|
thirdInner _______________|
So the garbage collector will now delete the outer array int[][]
, which also removes all references to the first and second inner array. But the third is still referenced by thirdInner
, so after garbage collection we have:
outer --> null
thirdInner --> 5, 6
Explanation
You can not explicitly delete something in Java. It is the garbage collectors job to do that. It will delete anything which is not used anymore by anyone. So either
- let the variable fall out of scope or
- assign
null
- or any other instance to it.
Then the array instance (as well as its subarrays) is not referenced anymore and the garbage collector will delete it eventually.
References
To understand why re-assigning the outer array is enough to also delete the inner arrays, you need to understand how they are referenced. Again, the garbage collector will delete anything which is not referenced. So let's take a look at an array such as:
int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
We have 4 array instances. One is of type int[][]
and three of type int[]
. Also, we have one variable outer
. The instances are referenced as follows:
___> 1, 2
|
outer --> int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|___> 5, 6
So by deleting outer
, nobody references int[][]
anymore. The garbage collector can now delete it. But that also removes all references to the inner arrays, so the garbage collector can now also delete them.
Now assume that you would reference one of the inner arrays by another variable:
int[][] outer = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
int[] thirdInner = outer[2];
other = null; // remove the reference
The situation is now
outer --> null
___> 1, 2
|
int[][] ---|---> 3, 4
|
|______> 5, 6
|
thirdInner _______________|
So the garbage collector will now delete the outer array int[][]
, which also removes all references to the first and second inner array. But the third is still referenced by thirdInner
, so after garbage collection we have:
outer --> null
thirdInner --> 5, 6
edited yesterday


isanae
2,55711437
2,55711437
answered Apr 8 at 7:27
ZabuzaZabuza
12.1k52744
12.1k52744
3
"Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".
– Boris the Spider
Apr 8 at 10:26
That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 10:34
@BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".
– bwoebi
Apr 8 at 12:25
2
"Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). Whennull
is assigned toouter
, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.
– Boann
Apr 8 at 16:34
1
Be my guest and correct the terms. But I think it is better to keep it simple and then add a section which has a reference to some deeper explanation, quickly summarizing how it works in two sentences.
– Zabuza
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
3
"Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".
– Boris the Spider
Apr 8 at 10:26
That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 10:34
@BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".
– bwoebi
Apr 8 at 12:25
2
"Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). Whennull
is assigned toouter
, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.
– Boann
Apr 8 at 16:34
1
Be my guest and correct the terms. But I think it is better to keep it simple and then add a section which has a reference to some deeper explanation, quickly summarizing how it works in two sentences.
– Zabuza
yesterday
3
3
"Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".
– Boris the Spider
Apr 8 at 10:26
"Not referenced" is tricky - as everything is "not referenced" at some point. The correct language is "not reachable by hard references from a GC root".
– Boris the Spider
Apr 8 at 10:26
That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 10:34
That's absolute correct and a good note! But I feel that it would unnecessarily complicate the answer.
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 10:34
@BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".
– bwoebi
Apr 8 at 12:25
@BoristheSpider I think "not referenced" is a good choice of words, as everything is referenced in java, just possibly not necessarily from java objects but from the jvm internals (e.g. stack variables, loaded java.lang.Class instances, ...) (the latter cases being marked together as GC roots). So I'd still call it "referenced".
– bwoebi
Apr 8 at 12:25
2
2
"Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). When
null
is assigned to outer
, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.– Boann
Apr 8 at 16:34
"Not referenced" is not strictly correct. "Not referenced" implies that two objects which refer to each other, or one object which refers to itself, won't be deleted, which is obviously untrue. Garbage collectors don't delete objects that are "not referenced", they delete objects that are not reachable from a GC root (running thread). When
null
is assigned to outer
, the entire array and all inner arrays become not reachable by the program, and all are swept away in one go. It's not necessary to delete the outer array first, in order to discover the inner arrays were also deletable.– Boann
Apr 8 at 16:34
1
1
Be my guest and correct the terms. But I think it is better to keep it simple and then add a section which has a reference to some deeper explanation, quickly summarizing how it works in two sentences.
– Zabuza
yesterday
Be my guest and correct the terms. But I think it is better to keep it simple and then add a section which has a reference to some deeper explanation, quickly summarizing how it works in two sentences.
– Zabuza
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
At some point after the array goes out of scope, the garbage collector will reclaim the memory if there are no other references to it.
If you want to null your reference before the variable goes out of scope (keep in mind that if some other code has this reference, it won't get garbage collected):
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
...
// this will null the reference to the array
fooArray = null;
3
Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 8 at 9:24
Good point - edited.
– Jason
Apr 8 at 22:24
add a comment |
At some point after the array goes out of scope, the garbage collector will reclaim the memory if there are no other references to it.
If you want to null your reference before the variable goes out of scope (keep in mind that if some other code has this reference, it won't get garbage collected):
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
...
// this will null the reference to the array
fooArray = null;
3
Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 8 at 9:24
Good point - edited.
– Jason
Apr 8 at 22:24
add a comment |
At some point after the array goes out of scope, the garbage collector will reclaim the memory if there are no other references to it.
If you want to null your reference before the variable goes out of scope (keep in mind that if some other code has this reference, it won't get garbage collected):
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
...
// this will null the reference to the array
fooArray = null;
At some point after the array goes out of scope, the garbage collector will reclaim the memory if there are no other references to it.
If you want to null your reference before the variable goes out of scope (keep in mind that if some other code has this reference, it won't get garbage collected):
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
...
// this will null the reference to the array
fooArray = null;
edited Apr 8 at 22:24
answered Apr 8 at 7:08


JasonJason
9,69733545
9,69733545
3
Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 8 at 9:24
Good point - edited.
– Jason
Apr 8 at 22:24
add a comment |
3
Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 8 at 9:24
Good point - edited.
– Jason
Apr 8 at 22:24
3
3
Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 8 at 9:24
Your phrasing (“once”) makes it sounds as if the memory will be reclaimed as soon as the last reference goes out of scope. It’s a rather important property of the Java GC that this is not the case.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 8 at 9:24
Good point - edited.
– Jason
Apr 8 at 22:24
Good point - edited.
– Jason
Apr 8 at 22:24
add a comment |
Unlike C, Java provides automatic garbage collection,which will clear the array for you as it becomes unreachable(i.e goes out of scope).If you want you can make the array as null so that the memory location becomes unreachable.
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
.
.
.
fooArray = null;
System.gc();
This gc call doesn't ensure that JVM will run garbage collector but it suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects
4
I do not really see the benefit of suggestingSystem#gc
. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 7:15
I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work
– Vaibhav Gupta
Apr 8 at 7:18
5
@Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.
– Jonathan Rosenne
Apr 8 at 7:52
add a comment |
Unlike C, Java provides automatic garbage collection,which will clear the array for you as it becomes unreachable(i.e goes out of scope).If you want you can make the array as null so that the memory location becomes unreachable.
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
.
.
.
fooArray = null;
System.gc();
This gc call doesn't ensure that JVM will run garbage collector but it suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects
4
I do not really see the benefit of suggestingSystem#gc
. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 7:15
I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work
– Vaibhav Gupta
Apr 8 at 7:18
5
@Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.
– Jonathan Rosenne
Apr 8 at 7:52
add a comment |
Unlike C, Java provides automatic garbage collection,which will clear the array for you as it becomes unreachable(i.e goes out of scope).If you want you can make the array as null so that the memory location becomes unreachable.
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
.
.
.
fooArray = null;
System.gc();
This gc call doesn't ensure that JVM will run garbage collector but it suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects
Unlike C, Java provides automatic garbage collection,which will clear the array for you as it becomes unreachable(i.e goes out of scope).If you want you can make the array as null so that the memory location becomes unreachable.
Foo[][] fooArray = new Foo[2][3];
.
.
.
fooArray = null;
System.gc();
This gc call doesn't ensure that JVM will run garbage collector but it suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects
edited Apr 8 at 7:15
answered Apr 8 at 7:14
Vaibhav GuptaVaibhav Gupta
475311
475311
4
I do not really see the benefit of suggestingSystem#gc
. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 7:15
I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work
– Vaibhav Gupta
Apr 8 at 7:18
5
@Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.
– Jonathan Rosenne
Apr 8 at 7:52
add a comment |
4
I do not really see the benefit of suggestingSystem#gc
. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).
– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 7:15
I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work
– Vaibhav Gupta
Apr 8 at 7:18
5
@Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.
– Jonathan Rosenne
Apr 8 at 7:52
4
4
I do not really see the benefit of suggesting
System#gc
. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 7:15
I do not really see the benefit of suggesting
System#gc
. In most situations it will degrade performance. Let the garbage collector do it's job. It is usually only used to cleanup before a measurement (profiler and other tools).– Zabuza
Apr 8 at 7:15
I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work
– Vaibhav Gupta
Apr 8 at 7:18
I agree with you but in some cases, it may make sense to suggest to the JVM that it do a full collection NOW as you may know the application will be sitting idle for the next few minutes before heavy work
– Vaibhav Gupta
Apr 8 at 7:18
5
5
@Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.
– Jonathan Rosenne
Apr 8 at 7:52
@Vaibhav Gupta The garbage collector does not clear the array, it only frees it. It is possible for malware to access the data, sometimes for a long time, until the memory has been reused. If the array contains sensitive data it should be actively cleared before being released.
– Jonathan Rosenne
Apr 8 at 7:52
add a comment |
1
@TT. although the answer is the same, my question was specific in arrays. Meaning that, even if I've read it before I asking, I would still be in doubt (from a nooby perspective)
– Chronus
Apr 8 at 7:38
4
Ok I hear you. Know that everything apart from primitive data types (e.g. int, double, ...) are objects. Important to know.
– TT.
Apr 8 at 7:49