Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Difference between Concurrent Collections and Synchronized Collections in JDK

Traditionally, we have also used object locks (semaphores) and synchronized methods to make our collections thread-safe. But having an exclusive lock on an object brings in scalability issues.

Hence the latest versions of JDK have a new package called "java.util.concurrent". This package contains many new collections objects that are thread-safe, but not so because of synchronization :)

More details at this link:

Snippet from the above link:

The "Concurrent" prefix used with some classes in this package is a shorthand indicating several differences from similar "synchronized" classes. For example java.util.Hashtable and Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap()) are synchronized. 

But ConcurrentHashMap is "concurrent". A concurrent collection is thread-safe, but not governed by a single exclusion lock. In the particular case of ConcurrentHashMap, it safely permits any number of concurrent reads as well as a tunable number of concurrent writes.

 "Synchronized" classes can be useful when you need to prevent all access to a collection via a single lock, at the expense of poorer scalability. In other cases in which multiple threads are expected to access a common collection, "concurrent" versions are normally preferable. And unsynchronized collections are preferable when either collections are unshared, or are accessible only when holding other locks. 

Most concurrent Collection implementations (including most Queues) also differ from the usual java.util conventions in that their Iterators provide weakly consistent rather than fast-fail traversal. A weakly consistent iterator is thread-safe, but does not necessarily freeze the collection while iterating, so it may (or may not) reflect any updates since the iterator was created. 

Also a good post on Concurrency basics is available at: (All chapters a must read :)

Another good blog that explains how ConcurrentHashMap maintains several  locks instead of one single mutex to deliver better performance.

No comments:

Post a Comment