Differences between new Integer(123), Integer.valueOf(123) and just 123

Question

Recenlty I saw code (Java) like this:

myMethod(new Integer(123));

I am currently refactoring some code, and there is a tip in Sonar tool, that it's more memory friendly to use sth like this:

myMethod(Integer.valueOf(123));

However in this case, I think that there is no difference if I would use:

myMethod(123);

I could understand that, if I would pass a variable to the method, but hard coded int? Or if there would be Long/Double etc and I want Long representation of number. But integer?

Wulf

it actually doesn't matter if you do myMethod(Integer.valueOf(123)) or myMethod(123) as autoboxing will use Integer.valueOf() for you. judge for yourself which one is more readable. (assuming myMethod takes Integer) – Outvote

From JDK 9 onward, it is highly recommended to use .valueOf() method instead of using constructor. This is because they all have @HotSpotIntrinsicCandidate annotation notifying HotSpot VM that it can use optimised assembly level code to gain better performance. --- A method * is intrinsified if the HotSpot VM replaces the annotated method with hand-written * assembly and/or hand-written compiler IR -- a compiler intrinsic -- to improve * performance. – Aachen

Answer 1

new Integer(123) will create a new Object instance for each call.

According to the javadoc, Integer.valueOf(123) has the difference it caches Objects... so you may (or may not) end up with the same Object if you call it more than once.

For instance, the following code:

   public static void main(String[] args) {

        Integer a = new Integer(1);
        Integer b = new Integer(1);

        System.out.println("a==b? " + (a==b));

        Integer c = Integer.valueOf(1);
        Integer d = Integer.valueOf(1);

        System.out.println("c==d? " + (c==d));

    }

Has the following output:

a==b? false
c==d? true

As to using the int value, you are using the primitive type (considering your method also uses the primitive type on its signature) - it will use slightly less memory and might be faster, but you won't be ale to add it to collections, for instance.

Also take a look at Java's AutoBoxing if your method's signature uses Integer- when using it, the JVM will automatically call Integer.valueOf() for you (therefore using the cache aswell).

Inseparable

So does autoboxing always create a new object? Or can it also make use of caching? If you add this information to your post, I think yours will be the best answer. – Edwyna

@MananShah it's already there (: Yes - autoboxing uses Integer.valueOf(), so it does use caching. – Inseparable

@Inseparable Why would listIntegers.remove(new Integer(234)); work if new Integer(234) created a different Object from the existing Integer.valueOf(234)? – Steels

Answer 2

public static Integer valueOf(int i)

Returns a Integer instance representing the specified int value. If a new Integer instance is not required, this method should generally be used in preference to the constructor Integer(int), as this method is likely to yield significantly better space and time performance by caching frequently requested values.

Parameters:
i - an int value.
Returns:
a Integer instance representing i.
Since:
1.5

refer http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/Integer.html#valueOf%28int%29

This variant of valueOf was added in JDK 5 to Byte, Short, Integer, and Long (it already existed in the trivial case in Boolean since JDK 1.4). All of these are, of course, immutable objects in Java. Used to be that if you needed an Integer object from an int, you’d construct a new Integer. But in JDK 5+, you should really use valueOf because Integer now caches Integer objects between -128 and 127 and can hand you back the same exact Integer(0) object every time instead of wasting an object construction on a brand new identical Integer object.

private static class IntegerCache {
private IntegerCache(){}

static final Integer cache[] = new Integer[-(-128) + 127 + 1];

static {
    for(int i = 0; i < cache.length; i++)
    cache[i] = new Integer(i - 128);
}
}

public static Integer valueOf(int i) {
final int offset = 128;
if (i >= -128 && i <= 127) { // must cache
    return IntegerCache.cache[i + offset];
}
    return new Integer(i);
}

refer Why YOU should use Integer.valueOf(int)

EDIT

autoboxing and object creation:

The important point we must consider is that autoboxing doesn't reduce object creation, but it reduces code complexity. A good rule of thumb is to use primitive types where there is no need for objects, for two reasons:

Primitive types will not be slower than their corresponding wrapper types, and may be a lot faster. There can be some unexpected behavior involving == (compare references) and .equals() (compare values).

Normally, when the primitive types are boxed into the wrapper types, the JVM allocates memory and creates a new object. But for some special cases, the JVM reuses the same object.

The following is the list of primitives stored as immutable objects:

• boolean values true and false

• All byte values

• short values between -128 and 127

• int values between -128 and 127

• char in the range \u0000 to \u007F

refer http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2005/03/24/autoboxing.html#performance_issue

Sulla

Answer 3

only range between -128 to +127 implements in cache.

Integer a = new Integer(1);
 Integer b = new Integer(1);

 System.out.println("a==b? " + (a==b));

 Integer c = Integer.valueOf(127);
 Integer d = Integer.valueOf(127);

 System.out.println("c==d? " + (c==d)); 

 Integer e = Integer.valueOf(128);
 Integer f = Integer.valueOf(128);

 System.out.println("e==f? " + (e==f)); 

Refer this java specification:

http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/conversions.html#5.1.7

in JDK 5+, you should really use valueOf because Integer now caches Integer objects between -128 and 127 and can hand you back the same exact Integer(0) object every time instead of wasting an object construction on a brand new identical Integer object.

Markhor

Answer 4

int is primitive type, not an object.

new Integer(123) and Integer.valueOf(123) both return Integer object representing value 123. As per javadoc for Integer.valueOf():

Returns a Integer instance representing the specified int value. If a new Integer instance is not required, this method should generally be used in preference to the constructor Integer(int), as this method is likely to yield significantly better space and time performance by caching frequently requested values.

Fortissimo

Answer 5

Does your method require an int or an Integer?

new Integer(int) and Integer.valueOf(int) both return Integer objects, but valueOf should be preferred as it is more efficient because it returns cached objects. If your method requires an Integer you should use Integer.valueOf.

If your method requires an int, you should use an int (e.g. 123).

However, it is not strictly necessary to match types in this way because of autoboxing, which automatically converts an int to an Integer and vice versa when the types don't match. This allows you to pass an int into a method requiring an Integer, and an Integer into a method requiring an int. But be aware that there are performance costs associated with autoboxing. The most common example of when you would use autoboxing is if you wanted to store primitives in a collection.

Audraaudras

Answer 6

When you use some thing like new Integer(88) the SpotBugs code analyze tool, complains a performance issue.

The description of this issue shows deference of new and valueOf

Method invokes inefficient Number constructor; use static valueOf instead Using new Integer(int) is guaranteed to always result in a new object whereas Integer.valueOf(int) allows caching of values to be done by the compiler, class library, or JVM. Using of cached values avoids object allocation and the code will be faster. Values between -128 and 127 are guaranteed to have corresponding cached instances and using valueOf is approximately 3.5 times faster than using constructor. For values outside the constant range the performance of both styles is the same. Unless the class must be compatible with JVMs predating Java 5, use either autoboxing or the valueOf() method when creating instances of Long, Integer, Short, Character, and Byte. Bug kind and pattern: Bx - DM_NUMBER_CTOR

Jasmine