What's the difference between ConcurrentHashMap and Collections.synchronizedMap(Map)?

up vote185down votefavorite 100

I have a Map which is to be modified by several threads concurrently. There seem to be three different synchronized Map implementations in the Java API: Hashtable Collections.synchronizedMap(Map) ConcurrentHashMap From what I understand, Hashtable is an old implementation (extending the obsolete Dictionaryclass), which has been adapted later to fit the Map interface. While it is synchronized, it seems to have serious scalability issues and is discouraged for new projects. But what about the other two? What are the differences between Maps returned byCollections.synchronizedMap(Map) and ConcurrentHashMaps? Which one fits which situation? java concurrency maps share|improve this question edited Aug 21 at 18:00 Macarse 32.1k1890170 asked Feb 4 '09 at 9:22 Henning 2,65341619

3   I would suggest to read this article as to how ConcurrentHashMap works and what guarantees it can give.codercorp.com/blog/java/… –  Smiles in a Jar Aug 16 '11 at 3:40 @SmilesinaJar : very userful article –  Krsna Chaitanya yesterday  add comment

11 Answers

activeoldestvotes

up vote102down voteaccepted

For your needs, use ConcurrentHashMap. It allows concurrent modification of the Map from several threads without the need to block them. Collections.synchronizedMap(map) creates a blocking Map which will degrade performance, albeit ensure consistency (if used properly). Use the second option if you need to ensure data consistency, and each thread needs to have an up-to-date view of the map. Use the first if performance is critical, and each thread only inserts data to the map, with reads happening less frequently. share|improve this answer answered Feb 4 '09 at 9:32 Yuval Adam 50.5k30156261

2   Looking at the source code, the synchronized map is only an implementation with one mutex (blocking) while the ConcurrentHashMap is more complex to deal with concurrent access –  Vinze Feb 4 '09 at 9:36 29   Please also note that the ConcurrentHashMap does not allow null keys or values. So they are NOT equal alternatives of a synchronized map. –  onejigtwojig Oct 20 '11 at 19:42  7   I think you should read this http://ria101.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/concurrenthashmap-avoid-a-common-misuse/‌​ –  Abdullah Shaikh Aug 31 '12 at 13:30  add comment

up vote57down vote

The "scalability issues" for Hashtable are present in exactly the same way inCollections.synchronizedMap(Map) - they use very simple synchronization, which means that only one thread can access the map at the same time. This is not much of an issue when you have simple inserts and lookups (unless you do it extremely intensively), but becomes a big problem when you need to iterate over the entire Map, which can take a long time for a large Map - while one thread does that, all others have to wait if they want to insert or lookup anything. The ConcurrentHashMap uses very sophisticated techniques to reduce the need for synchronization and allow parallel read access by multiple threads without synchronization and, more importantly, provides an Iterator that requires no synchronization and even allows the Map to be modified during interation (though it makes no guarantees whether or not elements that were inserted during iteration will be returned). share|improve this answer answered Feb 4 '09 at 9:43 Michael Borgwardt 164k19216439

1   Now that's what I wanted! :) The no-synchronized Iterator is just pure sweetness alone! Thansk for the info! :) (: –  Kounavi Jun 30 '11 at 20:28  Great answer..but does it mean during retrieval thread will not get the latest updates since reader threads are not in sync. –  MrA May 13 at 11:54 @MrA: Are you asking about the ConcurrentHashMap? And what do you mean by "retrieval"? – Michael Borgwardt May 13 at 12:24 1   @Michael Borgwardt for ConcurrentHashmap for eg. suppose there are multiple threads. some of them are updating the Map and some of them are getting data from that same map. SO in this scenario when threads are trying to read is it guaranteed that they will get the latest data that has been updated since reader threads does not have to hold locks. –  MrA May 13 at 23:12 add comment

up vote19down vote

╔═══════════════╦═══════════════════╦═══════════════════╦═════════════════════╗ ║ Property ║ HashMap ║ Hashtable ║ ConcurrentHashMap ║ ╠═══════════════╬═══════════════════╬═══════════════════╬═════════════════════╣ ║ Null ║ allowed ║ not allowed ║ not allowed ║ ║ values/keys ║ ║ ║ ║ ╠═══════════════╬═══════════════════╬═══════════════════╬═════════════════════╣ ║Is thread-safe ║ no ║ yes ║ yes ║ ╠═══════════════╬═══════════════════╬═══════════════════╬═════════════════════╣ ║ Lock ║ not ║ locks the whole ║ locks the portion of║ ║ mechanism ║ applicable ║ map ║ map ║ ╠═══════════════╬═══════════════════╩═══════════════════╬═════════════════════╣ ║ Iterator ║ fail-fast ║ fail-safe ║ ╚═══════════════╩═══════════════════════════════════════╩═════════════════════╝ share|improve this answer answered Jul 21 at 20:09 shevchik 3,67521327

add comment

up vote17down vote

ConcurrentHashMap is preferred when you can use it - though it requires at least Java 5. It is designed to scale well when used by multiple threads. Performance may be marginally poorer when only a single thread accesses the Map at a time, but significantly better when multiple threads access the map concurrently. I found a blog entry that reproduces a table from the excellent book Java Concurrency In Practice, which I thoroughly recommend. Collections.synchronizedMap makes sense really only if you need to wrap up a map with some other characteristics, perhaps some sort of ordered map, like a TreeMap. share|improve this answer