trove vs fastutil

Both Trove and fastutil are Java libraries designed to provide high-performance, memory-efficient collections for primitive types and objects. Heres a detailed comparison: Overview Feature Trove fastutil Purpose Primitive collections Primitive & advanced collections Performance Good (faster than Java Collections) Excellent (often fastest) Memory Efficient (avoids boxing) Highly optimized (lower overhead) Maintenance Less active (last update 2018) Actively maintained (2023) Key Features Trove Focuses on primitive collections (TIntArrayList, THashMap, etc.). Avoids autoboxing (better performance than ArrayList). Lightweight, but lacks some advanced data structures. Pros: Simple API, good for basic primitive collections. Cons: No longer actively maintained, fewer features. fastutil Supports primitives + advanced structures (priority queues, graphs, etc.). More comprehensive (e.g., Int2IntOpenHashMap, IntHeapPriorityQueue). Better performance in most benchmarks. Pros: Actively maintained, wider variety of collections. Cons: Slightly larger JAR size (15MB vs Trove's 4MB). Performance Comparison fastutil is generally faster than Trove in most operations (e.g., map lookups, iterations). Trove is still faster than Javas HashMap, but fastutil is often the fastest. Memory usage: Both avoid boxing, but fastutil has optimizations for large datasets. When to Use Which? Use Case Recommendation Need basic primitive collections (small project) Trove Need high performance, advanced structures fastutil Long-term maintenance required fastutil (actively updated) Minimal JAR size needed Trove Example Code Trove (Int List) fastutil (Int List) Conclusion For most new projects, fastutil is the better choice due to better performance, active maintenance, and more features. For legacy systems using Trove, migration may not be urgent unless performance is critical. Would you like a deeper dive into any specific aspect (e.g., benchmarks, memory usage)?