• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 624
  • Last Modified:

Searching an arraylist in java or database query which is faster

Searching an arraylist of size 25000 (using contains method)  or queryig a database table of the same size, which is faster?
We have to validate a field entered by the user, we can cache the master data for that field in application scope in an arraylist and use contains function to look for the validity of user entered data. Or fire an SQL (Oracle database)  to check if the data exist. caching 25000 records in Tomcat server is it advisable? is the contains function faster than SQL considering the network round trip required for a database call?
0
gksuresh_ee
Asked:
gksuresh_ee
  • 3
  • 2
1 Solution
 
Bart CremersJava ArchitectCommented:
If you don't need to open a new DB connection (connection pooling) and you've got the correct indexes placed on your table, the Oracle DB call probably will be faster. But the best way to find out is to write both and do a benchmark check.
0
 
ksivananthCommented:
in memory is much faster than Db call! that is the reason the cache evolved!

you may choose the best between map or list based on the data you are going to store. Usually search will be faster in Map than list!
0
 
Bart CremersJava ArchitectCommented:
Caches never use arraylists to perform searches, as stated in the question. Having a map with a well chosen key can indeed be faster, but caching an entire table containing 25000 records is hardly ever a good idea.
0
The new generation of project management tools

With monday.com’s project management tool, you can see what everyone on your team is working in a single glance. Its intuitive dashboards are customizable, so you can create systems that work for you.

 
ksivananthCommented:
>>Caches never use arraylists to perform searches

thats why I told him to consider the map data structure and choose the best fit for his data and search!

>>caching an entire table containing 25000 records is hardly ever a good idea

Well, it purely depends the size of a single entity but 25000 is not a big number to be worried as you can get memory for less cost now a days. Its a trade off between efficiency vs memory!
0
 
Bart CremersJava ArchitectCommented:
The reason I say is caching 25000 records is probably not a good idea is that I can not imagine a table of that size to contain frozen data. And if the data is not fixed, it's a pain to keep your map up to date.
0
 
kingsobCommented:
the time it takes to search the array list in memory is prob less than the time it will take to send a single packet to the database server (with pooled connections or not, its still got to make blocking system calls)

that being said, i would still go with the database, thats what its for

also, it will allow for growth in the future
0

Featured Post

Receive 1:1 tech help

Solve your biggest tech problems alongside global tech experts with 1:1 help.

  • 3
  • 2
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now