Advertisement

Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 2829–2864 | Cite as

Getting the most from map data structures in Android

  • Rubén Saborido
  • Rodrigo Morales
  • Foutse Khomh
  • Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc
  • Giuliano Antoniol
Article

Abstract

A map is a data structure that is commonly used to store data as key–value pairs and retrieve data as keys, values, or key–value pairs. Although Java offers different map implementation classes, Android SDK offers other implementations supposed to be more efficient than HashMap: ArrayMap and SparseArray variants (SparseArray, LongSparseArray, SparseIntArray, SparseLongArray, and SparseBooleanArray). Yet, the performance of these implementations in terms of CPU time, memory usage, and energy consumption is lacking in the official Android documentation; although saving CPU, memory, and energy is a major concern of users wanting to increase battery life. Consequently, we study the use of map implementations by Android developers in two ways. First, we perform an observational study of 5713 Android apps in GitHub. Second, we conduct a survey to assess developers’ perspective on Java and Android map implementations. Then, we perform an experimental study comparing HashMap, ArrayMap, and SparseArray variants map implementations in terms of CPU time, memory usage, and energy consumption. We conclude with guidelines for choosing among the map implementations: HashMap is preferable over ArrayMap to improve energy efficiency of apps, and SparseArray variants should be used instead of HashMap and ArrayMap when keys are primitive types.

Keywords

Android Map data structure Map implementations CPU usage Memory usage Energy consumption 

References

  1. Banerjee A, Chong LK, Chattopadhyay S, Roychoudhury A (2014) Detecting energy bugs and hotspots in mobile apps. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering, FSE, vol 2014. ACM, New York, pp 588–598.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2635868.2635871
  2. Chen X, Zong Z (2016) Android app energy efficiency: the impact of language, runtime, compiler, and implementation. In: 2016 IEEE international conferences on big data and cloud computing (BDCloud), social computing and networking (socialcom), sustainable computing and communications (sustaincom) (BDCloud-socialcom-sustaincom), pp 485–492.  https://doi.org/10.1109/BDCloud-SocialCom-SustainCom.2016.77
  3. Cuervo E, Balasubramanian A, Dk Cho, Wolman A, Saroiu S, Chandra R, Bahl P (2010) MAUI: making Smartphones last longer with code offload. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on mobile systems, applications, and services, MobiSys ’10. ACM, New York, pp 49–62.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1814433.1814441
  4. Gui J, Mcilroy S, Nagappan M, Halfond WGJ (2015) Truth in advertising: the hidden cost of mobile ads for software developers. In: Proceedings of the 37th international conference on software engineering (ICSE)Google Scholar
  5. Hasan S, King Z, Hafiz M, Sayagh M, Adams B, Hindle A (2016) Energy profiles of java collections classes. In: Proceedings of the 38th international conference on software engineering (ICSE), Austin, TX, US, pp 225–236Google Scholar
  6. Huang P, Xu T, Jin X, Zhou Y (2016) Defdroid: towards a more defensive mobile OS against disruptive app behavior. In: Proceedings of the the 14th ACM international conference on mobile systems, applications, and services, singapore, singapore.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2906388.2906419
  7. Li D, Hao S, Gui J, Halfond WGJ (2014) An empirical study of the energy consumption of android applications. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME)Google Scholar
  8. Linares-Vásquez M, Bavota G, Bernal-Cárdenas C, Oliveto R, Di Penta M, Poshyvanyk D (2014) Mining energy-greedy API usage patterns in android apps: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 11th working conference on mining software repositories, MSR 2014. ACM, New York, pp 2–11.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2597073.2597085
  9. Liu K, Pinto G, Liu YD (2015) Data-oriented characterization of application-Level energy optimization. In: Egyed A, Schaefer I (eds) Fundamental approaches to software engineering: 18th international conference, FASE 2015, held as part of the european joint conferences on theory and practice of software, ETAPS 2015, London, UK, April 11–18, 2015, Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, pp 316–331.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46675-9_21
  10. Manotas I, Pollock L, Clause J (2014) SEEDS: a software engineer’s energy-optimization decision support framework. In: Proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering, ICSE, vol 2014. ACM, New York, pp 503–514.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2568225.2568297
  11. Morales R, Saborido R, Khomh F, Chicano F, Antoniol G (2017) Earmo: an energy-aware refactoring approach for mobile apps. IEEE Trans Softw Eng PP (99):1–1.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2017.2757486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Saborido R, Beltrame G, Khomh F, Alba E, Antoniol G (2016) Optimizing user experience in choosing android applications. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE international conference on software analysis, evolution, and reengineering (SANER)Google Scholar
  13. Saborido R, Khomh F, Antoniol G, Guéhéneuc YG (2017) Comprehension Of ads-supported and paid Android applications: are they different?. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on program comprehension (ICPC). IEEE, Buenos Aires, pp 143–153.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2017.25
  14. Sahin C, Tornquist P, Mckenna R, Pearson Z, Clause J (2014) How does code obfuscation impact energy usage?. In: ICSME’14, pp 131–140Google Scholar
  15. Sahin C, Pollock L, Clause J (2016) From benchmarks to real apps: exploring the energy impacts of performance-directed changes. J Syst Softw.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.03.031. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121216000893
  16. Shacham O, Vechev M, Yahav E (2009) Chameleon: adaptive selection of collections. SIGPLAN Not 44(6):408–418.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1543135.1542522 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Singer J, Sim SE, Lethbridge TC (2008) Software engineering data collection for field studies. In: Guide to advanced empirical software engineering. Springer, pp 9–34Google Scholar
  18. Tyagi PK (1989) The effects of appeals, anonymity, and feedback on mail survey response patterns from salespeople. J Acad Mark Sci 17(3):235–241.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02729815 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zhang C, Hindle A, German DM (2014) The impact of user choice on energy consumption. IEEE Softw 31(3):69–75.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2014.27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Génie Informatique et Génie LogicielÉcole Polytechnique de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations