ConcurrentHashMap performs better than HashMap in multi-threaded environments due to built-in concurrency support. 1. HashMap is not thread-safe and requires external synchronization, leading to overhead. 2. ConcurrentHashMap uses segment locking (Java 7 and earlier) or synchronized bins and CAS operations (Java 8 ) to allow concurrent access without full map locking. 3. Read operations in ConcurrentHashMap are non-blocking and faster. 4. Iterators are weakly consistent, avoiding ConcurrentModificationException but may miss recent updates. 5. Bulk operations like putAll() or clear() aren't atomic, requiring external synchronization for full consistency. 6. ConcurrentHashMap uses more memory due to internal concurrency structures. 7. Use HashMap in single-threaded contexts for simplicity and speed. 8. Use ConcurrentHashMap when multiple threads read and write concurrently or when safe bulk operations and iterators are needed.

When you're working with Java and dealing with maps in a multi-threaded environment, choosing between HashMap and ConcurrentHashMap can have a noticeable impact on performance. If your application involves multiple threads reading and writing to a map, the choice becomes even more important. Let’s break down how these two compare when it comes to performance under different scenarios.

Thread Safety Without Overhead

The biggest difference between HashMap and ConcurrentHashMap is thread safety. HashMap isn't thread-safe at all — if multiple threads modify it concurrently, you could end up with corrupted data. You'd need to manually synchronize it, which adds overhead.

On the other hand, ConcurrentHashMap was built for concurrent access. It doesn’t lock the entire map when one thread is modifying it. Instead, it uses a technique called segment locking (in Java 7 and earlier) or synchronized bins and CAS operations (starting from Java 8), allowing multiple threads to operate on different parts of the map simultaneously.

So, if you're working in a single-threaded context, HashMap will outperform ConcurrentHashMap because there's no extra synchronization overhead. But as soon as concurrency comes into play, ConcurrentHashMap starts to shine.

Performance Under High Concurrency

Under heavy concurrent writes, ConcurrentHashMap definitely has an edge. Since it allows concurrent modifications by locking only part of the map (or using atomic operations), it scales better than a synchronized HashMap.

For example:

• When 10 threads are inserting entries into a map, a synchronized HashMap would block all but one thread at a time.
• Meanwhile, ConcurrentHashMap might allow several threads to insert simultaneously without contention.

This behavior makes ConcurrentHashMap ideal for high-concurrency applications like web servers or caching systems where many threads may be reading or writing at once.

Some key points to note:

• Read operations in ConcurrentHashMap generally don’t block, so they’re fast.
• Iterators returned by ConcurrentHashMap are weakly consistent, meaning they won’t throw ConcurrentModificationException, but they may not reflect the most recent changes.
• Bulk operations like putAll() or clear() aren’t atomic, so if you need full consistency during such operations, you’ll need external synchronization.

Memory Usage and Internal Overhead

It's also worth mentioning that ConcurrentHashMap tends to use more memory than a regular HashMap. That’s because of additional internal structures used for concurrency control — like locks or volatile fields.

If memory usage is a concern and your app doesn’t require concurrent access, then sticking with HashMap makes sense. However, in environments where both performance and thread safety matter, the trade-off in memory is usually acceptable.

Also, keep in mind that resizing a ConcurrentHashMap under high concurrency can get complex. Java 8 improved this by using tree bins and better resizing strategies, but it still carries some overhead compared to a simple resize in HashMap.

Use Cases and Recommendations

Choosing between the two really depends on your use case:

Use HashMap when:

• You're working in a single-threaded context
• You need maximum performance and minimal overhead
• You're okay with synchronizing externally if needed

Use ConcurrentHashMap when:

• Multiple threads will read and write concurrently
• You want to avoid manual synchronization
• You need safe and efficient bulk operations or iterators

A common mistake is assuming that wrapping a HashMap with Collections.synchronizedMap() gives you the same performance as ConcurrentHashMap. In reality, synchronized maps can become bottlenecks under load because they lock the whole structure.

In short, if your app needs to handle concurrent access safely and efficiently, ConcurrentHashMap is the way to go. Otherwise, stick with HashMap for simplicity and speed. The difference boils down to whether you need concurrency built-in or not — and it's not worth overengineering unless you actually see contention or thread-safety issues in practice.

The above is the detailed content of Comparing Java HashMap and ConcurrentHashMap Performance. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!