Most efficient way to concatenate Strings

Question

I was under the impression that StringBuffer is the fastest way to concatenate strings, but I saw this Stack Overflow post saying that concat() is the fastest method. I tried the 2 given examples in Java 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 but I never got the results they did. My results are almost identical to this

1. Can somebody explain what I don't understand here? What is truly the fastest way to concatenate strings in Java?

2. Is there a different answer when one seeks the fastest way to concatenate two strings and when concatenating multiple strings?

Overindulge

String is immutable, you should prefer StringBuilder over StringBuffer. – Trunk

You could easily run a test with a big for loop and time each example. – Eula

To concatenate 4 Strings you can just do s1 + s2 + s3 + s4. If you need to concatenate using a loop, you should use a StringBuilder explicitly. – Unlikely

In the example post linked, concat is faster because there is no overhead of creating a StringBuilder object. If your goal is to only ever join two strings, concat() is faster. If you need to join more than two, or at any point in the future could see adding more than one concatenation, I would suspect that an explicit StringBuilder is faster. – Bose

Do some profiling and choose the one that fits you best for your specific problem, platform and hardware. – Suite

@Bose My problem is I am not getting concat as fasted method when i run same example – Overindulge

Answer 1

String.concat is faster than the + operator if you are concatenating two strings... Although this can be fixed at any time and may even have been fixed in java 8 as far as I know.

The thing you missed in the first post you referenced is that the author is concatenating exactly two strings, and the fast methods are the ones where the size of the new character array is calculated in advance as str1.length() + str2.length(), so the underlying character array only needs to be allocated once.

Using StringBuilder() without specifying the final size, which is also how + works internally, will often need to do more allocations and copying of the underlying array.

If you need to concatenate a bunch of strings together, then you should use a StringBuilder. If it's practical, then precompute the final size so that the underlying array only needs to be allocated once.

Haematoxylon

Great Explanation. but can throw some ideas why I am not getting cancact as fastest method when i execute same code in post 1 copy and paste in my computer. (windows) . I tried both codes none of those given same result what they got. I got this even i tried multiple time none: 7 ns plus: 82 ns concat: 72 ns builder1: 46 ns builder2: 33 ns buffer1: 31 ns buffer2: 38 ns – Overindulge

Try running the tests in the reverse order and see if you get the same result. Then see: #504603 – Haematoxylon

Also, quickly, try running each one twice in a row (all 10M iterations) and look at the timings for the second runs only. – Haematoxylon

Thanks for ideas. i tried both. still i am not getting results to make "cancat" to mark as winner. however when run each twice I noted concat value is coming down significantly while others remain for second time as well – Overindulge

Answer 2

What I understood from others answer is following:

If you need thread safety, use StringBuffer

If you do not need thread safety:

If strings are known before hand and for some reasons multiple time same code needs to be run, use '+' as compiler will optimize and handle it during compile time itself.

if only two strings need to be concatenated, use concat() as it will not require StringBuilder/StringBuffer objects to be created. Credits to @nickb

If multiple strings need to be concatenated, use StringBuilder.

Gulgee

Answer 3

Joining very long lists os strings by naively addinging them from start to end is very slow: the padded buffer grows incrementally, and is reallocated again and again, making additional copies (and sollicitating a lot the garbage collector).

The most efficient way to join long lists is to always start by joining pairs of adjascent strings whose total length is the smallest from ALL other candidate pairs; however this would require a complex lookup to find the optimal pair (similar to the wellknown problem of Hanoi towers), and finding it only to reduce the numebr of copies to the strict minimum would slow down things.

What you need a smart algorithm using a "divide and conquer" recursive algorithm with a good heuristic which is very near from this optimum:

1. If you have no string to join, return the empty string.
2. If you have only 1 string to join, just return it.
3. Otherwise if you have only 2 strings to join, join them and return the result.
4. Compute the total length of the final result.
5. Then determine the number of strings to join from the left until it reaches half of this total to determine the "divide" point splitting the set of strings in two non-empty parts (each part must contain at least 1 string, the division point cannot be the 1st or last string from te set to join).
6. Join the smallest part if it has at least 2 strings to join, otherwise join the other part (using this algorithm recursively).
7. Loop back to the beginning (1.) to complete the other joins.

Note that empty strings in the collection have to be ignored as if they were not part of the set.

Many default implementations of String.join(table of string, optional separator) found in various libraries are slow as they are using naive incremental joinining from left to right; the divide-and-conquer algorithm above will outperform it, when you need to join MANY small string to generate a very large string.

Such situation is not exceptional, it occurs in text preprocessors and generators, or in HTML processing (e.g. in "Element.getInnerText()" when the element is a large document containing many text elements separated or contained by many named elements).

The strategy above works when the source strings are all (or almost all to be garbage collected to keep only the final result. If th result is kept together as long as the list of source strings, the best alternative is to allocate the final large buffer of the result only once for its total length, then copy source strings from left to right.

In both cases, this requires a first pass on all strings to compute their total length.

If you usse a reallocatable "string buffer", this does not work well if the "string buffer" reallocates constantly. However, the string buffer may be useful when performing the first pass, to prejoin some short strings that can fit in it, with a reasonnable (medium) size (e.g. 4KB for one page of memory): once it is full, replace the subset of strings by the content of the string buffer, and allocate a new one.

This can considerably reduce the number of small strings in the source set, and after the first pass, you have the total length for the final buffer to allocate for the result, where you'll copy incrementally all the remaining medium-size strings collected in the first pass This works very well when the list of source strings come from a parser function or generator, where the total length is not fully known before the end of parsing/generation: you'll use only intermediate stringbuffers with medium size, and finally you'll generate the final buffer without reparsing again the input (to get many incremental fragments) or without calling the generator repeatedly (this would be slow or would not work for some generators or if the input of the parser is consumed and not recoverable from the start).

Note that this remarks also applies not just to joinind strings, but also to file I/O: writing the file incrementally also suffers from reallocation or fragmentation: you should be able to precompute the total final length of the generated file. Otherwise you need a classig buffer (implemented in most file I/O libraries, and usually sized in memory at about one memory page of 4KB, but you should allocate more because file I/O is considerably slower, and fragmentation becomes a performance problem for later file accesses when file fragments are allocated incrementalyy by too small units of just one "cluster"; using a buffer at about 1MB will avoid most pperformance problems caused by fragmented allocation on the file system as fragments will be considerably larger; a filesystem like NTFS is optimized to support fragments up to 64MB, above which fragmentation is no longer a noticeable problem; the same is true for Unix/Linux filesystems, which rend to defragment only up to a maximum fragment size, and can efficiently handle allocation of small fragments using "pools" of free clusters organized by mimum size of 1 cluster, 2 cluster, 4 clusters, 8 clusters... in powers of two, so that defragmenting these pools is straightforward and not very costly, and can be done asynchornously in the background when there's lo level of I/O activity).

An in all modern OSes, memory management is correlated with disk storage management, using memory mapped files for handling caches: the memory is backed by a storage, managed by the virtual memory manager (which means that you can allocate more dynamic memory than you have physical RAM, the rest will be paged out to the disk when needed): the straegy you use for managing RAM for very large buffers tends to be correlated to the performance of I/O for paging: using a memory mapped file is a good solution, and everything that worked with file I/O can be done now in a very large (virtual) memory.

Aluminum