As per java we should maintain it as .75 and initial capacity is 16.however we can increase it.
but this is the best because let we give it to Initial=100 and load factor=1
now total size to fill is 100*1=100;
two problem
1-it will take time to create 100 bucket size
2-there may be chance of waist of memory
now 16*.75=12
so advantage
1-it will take less time to crate 12
2-if at all chance of waist of memory then it would be less
again we need to increase the bucket size ,since it is create less bucket so we can bear it.not big size
more link:-
http://www.coderanch.com/t/261961/java-programmer-SCJP/certification/Default-load-factor
but this is the best because let we give it to Initial=100 and load factor=1
now total size to fill is 100*1=100;
two problem
1-it will take time to create 100 bucket size
2-there may be chance of waist of memory
now 16*.75=12
so advantage
1-it will take less time to crate 12
2-if at all chance of waist of memory then it would be less
again we need to increase the bucket size ,since it is create less bucket so we can bear it.not big size
more link:-
http://www.coderanch.com/t/261961/java-programmer-SCJP/certification/Default-load-factor
This is a clear and practical way to explain load factor, especially for people who struggle to understand why Java defaults exist in the first place. Tying the load factor back to real tradeoffs like creation cost, rehashing, and memory usage makes the concept much more intuitive than just memorizing numbers like 16 and 0.75.
ReplyDeleteWhat often gets missed is that the default values are not random. They represent a balance that works well for most general purpose use cases, minimizing collisions while avoiding unnecessary memory allocation. As you point out, pushing the load factor to 1 or setting a very large initial capacity can easily backfire depending on usage patterns.
From a testing and performance validation perspective, this is also a good reminder that data structures should be tested under realistic load scenarios. Assumptions around size and growth matter. Teams that take performance seriously often document and validate these behaviors as part of their quality strategy. Using something like Tuskr test management software helps capture such performance related test cases and ensures they are revisited as the application evolves.
This is a clear and practical way to explain load factor, especially for people who struggle to understand why Java defaults exist in the first place. Tying the load factor back to real tradeoffs like creation cost, rehashing, and memory usage makes the concept much more intuitive than just memorizing numbers like 16 and 0.75.
ReplyDeleteWhat often gets missed is that the default values are not random. They represent a balance that works well for most general purpose use cases, minimizing collisions while avoiding unnecessary memory allocation. As you point out, pushing the load factor to 1 or setting a very large initial capacity can easily backfire depending on usage patterns.
From a testing and performance validation perspective, this is also a good reminder that data structures should be tested under realistic load scenarios. Assumptions around size and growth matter. Teams that take performance seriously often document and validate these behaviors as part of their quality strategy. Using something like Tuskr test management software helps capture such performance related test cases and ensures they are revisited as the application evolves.