Replacing with ArrayDeque wouldn't be straight forward since it implements
Deque interface where there is no method for accessing given index.
ArrayDeque provides remove by Object:
public boolean remove(Object o) {
return removeFirstOccurrence(o);
After the removal, add() or offer() only inserts at the end of the deque.
FYI
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org> wrote:
> > LL copy is fairly slow and likely loses us any gains. Also, I'm a little
> > dubious on the use of LL given that we support a replaceAtIndex which
> will
> > be much faster in an array.
> >
> > Can we improve by using an ArrayDeque?
> Does ArrayDeque support to change element by arbitrary index? If not, it
> not easy to change the impl by one line since the replaceAtIndex() need to
> change the element in pipeline.
>
> BTW, could we change the impl of "readOnlyCopy" from LinkedList to
> ArrayList? Most ops to readOnlyCopy are iteration, and the getLast can be
> replaced by size() and get(index).
>
> On 2018/03/10 20:12:01, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > I was reading through HBASE-17434 trying to understand why we have two
> > linked lists in compaction pipeline and I'm having trouble following the
> > conversation there, especially since it seems intertwined with
> HBASE-17379
> > and jumps back and forth a few times.
> >
> > It looks like we are implementing our own copy-on-write list, and there
> is
> > a claim that addFirst is faster on a LinkedList than an array based
> list. I
> > am concerned about the LL copy in pushHead - even if addFirst is faster,
> a
> > LL copy is fairly slow and likely loses us any gains. Also, I'm a little
> > dubious on the use of LL given that we support a replaceAtIndex which
> will
> > be much faster in an array.
> >
> > Can we improve by using an ArrayDeque?
> >
> > Eschar, Anastasia, WDYT?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > Some observations about performance -
> > https://stuartmarks.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/some-java-list-benchmarks/
> >
>
