I saw something like that being suggested when working with GIS data with many points as classes in Java, the object overhead for storing XYZ doubles is quite crazy. The optimization was to build a global double array and use "pointers" to get and set the number in the array.

Even JavaScript is much better for this, much, much better.

▲

spankalee an hour ago | parent | next [-]

JavaScript has the exact same issue - objects are on the heap and require allocation and pointer dereferencing. For huge collections of numbers, arrays might be better.

But JS has another problem: there's no way to force a number to be unboxed (no primitive vs boxed types), so the array of doubles might very well be an array of pointers to numbers[1].

But with hidden class optimizations an object might be able to store a float directly in a field, so the array of objects will have one box per (x,y,z), while an array of "numbers" might have one box per number, so 3x as many. My guess is, without benchmarking, is that JS is much worse than Java then, because the "optimization" will end up being worse.

[1]: Most JS engines have an optimization for small ints, called SMIs, that use pointer tagging to support either an int or a references, but I don't think they typically do this optimization for floats.

▲

lern_too_spel 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're describing array of structs vs. struct of arrays. Even in JavaScript, you would have to manually do the latter.

▲

kykat 2 hours ago | parent [-]

V8 automatically optimizes objects with the same shape into efficient structs, making array of objects much more efficient than in Java.

And the manually manager int array acts more like system memory, it's not continuous, so you could have point i 0 and 2 and the data would be: [1, 2, 3, x, x,x, 3, 2, 1] (3D points).

So I am not describing a struct of arrays.

▲

spankalee an hour ago | parent [-]

Hidden class optimizations just make JavaScript objects behave a little more like Java class instances, where the VM knows where to find each field, rather than having to look it up like a map.

It doesn't make JS faster than Java, it makes it almost as fast in some cases.

	▲	kykat 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I can only say what I observed in testing, and that's that having millions of instances of a class like Point3D{x, y, z} in JS uses significantly less memory than in Java (this was tested on Android, not sure if relevant). It was quite some time ago so I don't remember the details.