ArrayList vs LinkedList from memory allocation perspective
LinkedList might allocate fewer entries, but those entries are astronomically more expensive than they'd be for ArrayList -- enough that even the worst-case ArrayList is cheaper as far as memory is concerned.
(FYI, I think you've got it wrong; ArrayList grows by 1.5x when it's full, not 2x.)
See e.g. https://github.com/DimitrisAndreou/memory-measurer/blob/master/ElementCostInDataStructures.txt : LinkedList consumes 24 bytes per element, while ArrayList consumes in the best case 4 bytes per element, and in the worst case 6 bytes per element. (Results may vary depending on 32-bit versus 64-bit JVMs, and compressed object pointer options, but in those comparisons LinkedList costs at least 36 bytes/element, and ArrayList is at best 8 and at worst 12.)
UPDATE:
I understand from other posts here that individual elements stored in a LinkedList takes more space than an ArrayList as LinkedList also needs to store the node information, but I am still guessing for the scenario I have defined LinkedList might be a better option. Also, I do not want to get into the performance aspect (fetching, deleting etc) , as much has already been discussed on it.
To be clear, even in the worst case, ArrayList is 4x smaller than a LinkedList with the same elements. The only possible way to make LinkedList win is to deliberately fix the comparison by calling ensureCapacity with a deliberately inflated value, or to remove lots of values from the ArrayList after they've been added.
In short, it's basically impossible to make LinkedList win the memory comparison, and if you care about space, then calling trimToSize() on the ArrayList will instantly make ArrayList win again by a huge margin. Seriously. ArrayList wins.
... but I am still guessing for the scenario I have defined LinkedList might be a better option
Your guess is incorrect.
Once you have got past the initial capacity of the array list, the size of the backing will be between 1 and 2 references times the number of entries. This is due to strategy used to grow the backing array.
For a linked list, each node occupies AT LEAST 3 times the number of entries, because each node has a next and prev reference as well as the entry reference. (And in fact, it is more than 3 times, because of the space used by the nodes' object headers and padding. Depending on the JVM and pointer size, it can be as much as 6 times.)
The only situation where a linked list will use less space than an array list is if you badly over-estimate the array list's initial capacity. (And for very small lists ...)
When you think about it, the only real advantage linked lists have over array lists is when you are inserting and removing elements. Even then, it depends on how you do it.