I was wondering what is the quickest way of storing a byte[] with an integer index in java without using Maps, TreeMap, ArrayLists etc.
i.e. not like this:
private Map<Integer, byte[]> example = new TreeMap()
-
4Why can't you use those things you've listed?Anon.– Anon.2010-02-15 20:37:44 +00:00Commented Feb 15, 2010 at 20:37
-
Just wondering if there is a faster way of doing it.Hugh– Hugh2010-02-15 20:39:30 +00:00Commented Feb 15, 2010 at 20:39
-
4It sounds like you're optimizing prematurely. Don'tSLaks– SLaks2010-02-15 20:41:53 +00:00Commented Feb 15, 2010 at 20:41
-
nothing I was just wondering the best way to do it as byte[][] looks a little dirty. I was planning to use byte[][].Hugh– Hugh2010-02-15 20:42:08 +00:00Commented Feb 15, 2010 at 20:42
-
If you want to know the fastest way, ask for the fastest way. Not "The fastest way except for {x}", because then if {x} does happen to be the fastest way, you're going to get soemthing that doesn't solve your problem.Anon.– Anon.2010-02-15 20:42:17 +00:00Commented Feb 15, 2010 at 20:42
|
Show 2 more comments
3 Answers
private byte[][] example;
example = new byte[][ARRAYS_COUNT];
example[0] = new byte[10];
example[1] = new byte[20];
...
2 Comments
BalusC
He wanted to hold them with an integer index.
DNNX
I don't know how would you use this data structure so can't say for sure is this more efficient or not. For example, if you want to store 3 byte arrays with indexes, say, 0, 1 and 10000000, this is definitely less efficient than TreeMap.
Quickest way would be an ArrayList<byte[]>, or you want or not. A byte[][] isn't going to work as you can then hold only 28-1 arrays, not 232-1 as you could with an integer index which you explicitly mentioned in your question.
1 Comment
Hugh
Ah yes ArrayLists, I think ill try a few and see whats quickest. Thanks
How about byte[][] and resize as appropriate? Not as good as an ArrayList but you banned that...
