How would you implement an LRU cache in Java?
If I were doing this again from scratch today, I'd use Guava's CacheBuilder.
I like lots of these suggestions, but for now I think I'll stick with LinkedHashMap + Collections.synchronizedMap. If I do revisit this in the future, I'll probably work on extending ConcurrentHashMap in the same way LinkedHashMap extends HashMap.
UPDATE:
By request, here's the gist of my current implementation.
private class LruCache<A, B> extends LinkedHashMap<A, B> {
private final int maxEntries;
public LruCache(final int maxEntries) {
super(maxEntries + 1, 1.0f, true);
this.maxEntries = maxEntries;
}
/**
* Returns <tt>true</tt> if this <code>LruCache</code> has more entries than the maximum specified when it was
* created.
*
* <p>
* This method <em>does not</em> modify the underlying <code>Map</code>; it relies on the implementation of
* <code>LinkedHashMap</code> to do that, but that behavior is documented in the JavaDoc for
* <code>LinkedHashMap</code>.
* </p>
*
* @param eldest
* the <code>Entry</code> in question; this implementation doesn't care what it is, since the
* implementation is only dependent on the size of the cache
* @return <tt>true</tt> if the oldest
* @see java.util.LinkedHashMap#removeEldestEntry(Map.Entry)
*/
@Override
protected boolean removeEldestEntry(final Map.Entry<A, B> eldest) {
return super.size() > maxEntries;
}
}
Map<String, String> example = Collections.synchronizedMap(new LruCache<String, String>(CACHE_SIZE));
This is round two.
The first round was what I came up with then I reread the comments with the domain a bit more ingrained in my head.
So here is the simplest version with a unit test that shows it works based on some other versions.
First the non-concurrent version:
import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
import java.util.Map;
public class LruSimpleCache<K, V> implements LruCache <K, V>{
Map<K, V> map = new LinkedHashMap ( );
public LruSimpleCache (final int limit) {
map = new LinkedHashMap <K, V> (16, 0.75f, true) {
@Override
protected boolean removeEldestEntry(final Map.Entry<K, V> eldest) {
return super.size() > limit;
}
};
}
@Override
public void put ( K key, V value ) {
map.put ( key, value );
}
@Override
public V get ( K key ) {
return map.get(key);
}
//For testing only
@Override
public V getSilent ( K key ) {
V value = map.get ( key );
if (value!=null) {
map.remove ( key );
map.put(key, value);
}
return value;
}
@Override
public void remove ( K key ) {
map.remove ( key );
}
@Override
public int size () {
return map.size ();
}
public String toString() {
return map.toString ();
}
}
The true flag will track the access of gets and puts. See JavaDocs. The removeEdelstEntry without the true flag to the constructor would just implement a FIFO cache (see notes below on FIFO and removeEldestEntry).
Here is the test that proves it works as an LRU cache:
public class LruSimpleTest {
@Test
public void test () {
LruCache <Integer, Integer> cache = new LruSimpleCache<> ( 4 );
cache.put ( 0, 0 );
cache.put ( 1, 1 );
cache.put ( 2, 2 );
cache.put ( 3, 3 );
boolean ok = cache.size () == 4 || die ( "size" + cache.size () );
cache.put ( 4, 4 );
cache.put ( 5, 5 );
ok |= cache.size () == 4 || die ( "size" + cache.size () );
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 2 ) == 2 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 3 ) == 3 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 4 ) == 4 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 5 ) == 5 || die ();
cache.get ( 2 );
cache.get ( 3 );
cache.put ( 6, 6 );
cache.put ( 7, 7 );
ok |= cache.size () == 4 || die ( "size" + cache.size () );
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 2 ) == 2 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 3 ) == 3 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 4 ) == null || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 5 ) == null || die ();
if ( !ok ) die ();
}
Now for the concurrent version...
package org.boon.cache;
import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;
public class LruSimpleConcurrentCache<K, V> implements LruCache<K, V> {
final CacheMap<K, V>[] cacheRegions;
private static class CacheMap<K, V> extends LinkedHashMap<K, V> {
private final ReadWriteLock readWriteLock;
private final int limit;
CacheMap ( final int limit, boolean fair ) {
super ( 16, 0.75f, true );
this.limit = limit;
readWriteLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock ( fair );
}
protected boolean removeEldestEntry ( final Map.Entry<K, V> eldest ) {
return super.size () > limit;
}
@Override
public V put ( K key, V value ) {
readWriteLock.writeLock ().lock ();
V old;
try {
old = super.put ( key, value );
} finally {
readWriteLock.writeLock ().unlock ();
}
return old;
}
@Override
public V get ( Object key ) {
readWriteLock.writeLock ().lock ();
V value;
try {
value = super.get ( key );
} finally {
readWriteLock.writeLock ().unlock ();
}
return value;
}
@Override
public V remove ( Object key ) {
readWriteLock.writeLock ().lock ();
V value;
try {
value = super.remove ( key );
} finally {
readWriteLock.writeLock ().unlock ();
}
return value;
}
public V getSilent ( K key ) {
readWriteLock.writeLock ().lock ();
V value;
try {
value = this.get ( key );
if ( value != null ) {
this.remove ( key );
this.put ( key, value );
}
} finally {
readWriteLock.writeLock ().unlock ();
}
return value;
}
public int size () {
readWriteLock.readLock ().lock ();
int size = -1;
try {
size = super.size ();
} finally {
readWriteLock.readLock ().unlock ();
}
return size;
}
public String toString () {
readWriteLock.readLock ().lock ();
String str;
try {
str = super.toString ();
} finally {
readWriteLock.readLock ().unlock ();
}
return str;
}
}
public LruSimpleConcurrentCache ( final int limit, boolean fair ) {
int cores = Runtime.getRuntime ().availableProcessors ();
int stripeSize = cores < 2 ? 4 : cores * 2;
cacheRegions = new CacheMap[ stripeSize ];
for ( int index = 0; index < cacheRegions.length; index++ ) {
cacheRegions[ index ] = new CacheMap<> ( limit / cacheRegions.length, fair );
}
}
public LruSimpleConcurrentCache ( final int concurrency, final int limit, boolean fair ) {
cacheRegions = new CacheMap[ concurrency ];
for ( int index = 0; index < cacheRegions.length; index++ ) {
cacheRegions[ index ] = new CacheMap<> ( limit / cacheRegions.length, fair );
}
}
private int stripeIndex ( K key ) {
int hashCode = key.hashCode () * 31;
return hashCode % ( cacheRegions.length );
}
private CacheMap<K, V> map ( K key ) {
return cacheRegions[ stripeIndex ( key ) ];
}
@Override
public void put ( K key, V value ) {
map ( key ).put ( key, value );
}
@Override
public V get ( K key ) {
return map ( key ).get ( key );
}
//For testing only
@Override
public V getSilent ( K key ) {
return map ( key ).getSilent ( key );
}
@Override
public void remove ( K key ) {
map ( key ).remove ( key );
}
@Override
public int size () {
int size = 0;
for ( CacheMap<K, V> cache : cacheRegions ) {
size += cache.size ();
}
return size;
}
public String toString () {
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder ();
for ( CacheMap<K, V> cache : cacheRegions ) {
builder.append ( cache.toString () ).append ( '\n' );
}
return builder.toString ();
}
}
You can see why I cover the non-concurrent version first. The above attempts to create some stripes to reduce lock contention. So we it hashes the key and then looks up that hash to find the actual cache. This makes the limit size more of a suggestion/rough guess within a fair amount of error depending on how well spread your keys hash algorithm is.
Here is the test to show that the concurrent version probably works. :) (Test under fire would be the real way).
public class SimpleConcurrentLRUCache {
@Test
public void test () {
LruCache <Integer, Integer> cache = new LruSimpleConcurrentCache<> ( 1, 4, false );
cache.put ( 0, 0 );
cache.put ( 1, 1 );
cache.put ( 2, 2 );
cache.put ( 3, 3 );
boolean ok = cache.size () == 4 || die ( "size" + cache.size () );
cache.put ( 4, 4 );
cache.put ( 5, 5 );
puts (cache);
ok |= cache.size () == 4 || die ( "size" + cache.size () );
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 2 ) == 2 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 3 ) == 3 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 4 ) == 4 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 5 ) == 5 || die ();
cache.get ( 2 );
cache.get ( 3 );
cache.put ( 6, 6 );
cache.put ( 7, 7 );
ok |= cache.size () == 4 || die ( "size" + cache.size () );
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 2 ) == 2 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 3 ) == 3 || die ();
cache.put ( 8, 8 );
cache.put ( 9, 9 );
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 4 ) == null || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 5 ) == null || die ();
puts (cache);
if ( !ok ) die ();
}
@Test
public void test2 () {
LruCache <Integer, Integer> cache = new LruSimpleConcurrentCache<> ( 400, false );
cache.put ( 0, 0 );
cache.put ( 1, 1 );
cache.put ( 2, 2 );
cache.put ( 3, 3 );
for (int index =0 ; index < 5_000; index++) {
cache.get(0);
cache.get ( 1 );
cache.put ( 2, index );
cache.put ( 3, index );
cache.put(index, index);
}
boolean ok = cache.getSilent ( 0 ) == 0 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 1 ) == 1 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 2 ) != null || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 3 ) != null || die ();
ok |= cache.size () < 600 || die();
if ( !ok ) die ();
}
}
This is the last post.. The first post I deleted as it was a LFU not an LRU cache.
I thought I would give this another go. I was trying trying to come up with the simplest version of an LRU cache using the standard JDK w/o too much implementation.
Here is what I came up with. My first attempt was a bit of a disaster as I implemented a LFU instead of and LRU, and then I added FIFO, and LRU support to it... and then I realized it was becoming a monster. Then I started talking to my buddy John who was barely interested, and then I described at deep length how I implemented an LFU, LRU and FIFO and how you could switch it with a simple ENUM arg, and then I realized that all I really wanted was a simple LRU. So ignore the earlier post from me, and let me know if you want to see an LRU/LFU/FIFO cache that is switchable via an enum... no? Ok.. here he go.
The simplest possible LRU using just the JDK. I implemented both a concurrent version and a non-concurrent version.
I created a common interface (it is minimalism so likely missing a few features that you would like but it works for my use cases, but let if you would like to see feature XYZ let me know... I live to write code.).
public interface LruCache<KEY, VALUE> {
void put ( KEY key, VALUE value );
VALUE get ( KEY key );
VALUE getSilent ( KEY key );
void remove ( KEY key );
int size ();
}
You may wonder what getSilent is. I use this for testing. getSilent does not change LRU score of an item.
First the non-concurrent one....
import java.util.Deque;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.Map;
public class LruCacheNormal<KEY, VALUE> implements LruCache<KEY,VALUE> {
Map<KEY, VALUE> map = new HashMap<> ();
Deque<KEY> queue = new LinkedList<> ();
final int limit;
public LruCacheNormal ( int limit ) {
this.limit = limit;
}
public void put ( KEY key, VALUE value ) {
VALUE oldValue = map.put ( key, value );
/*If there was already an object under this key,
then remove it before adding to queue
Frequently used keys will be at the top so the search could be fast.
*/
if ( oldValue != null ) {
queue.removeFirstOccurrence ( key );
}
queue.addFirst ( key );
if ( map.size () > limit ) {
final KEY removedKey = queue.removeLast ();
map.remove ( removedKey );
}
}
public VALUE get ( KEY key ) {
/* Frequently used keys will be at the top so the search could be fast.*/
queue.removeFirstOccurrence ( key );
queue.addFirst ( key );
return map.get ( key );
}
public VALUE getSilent ( KEY key ) {
return map.get ( key );
}
public void remove ( KEY key ) {
/* Frequently used keys will be at the top so the search could be fast.*/
queue.removeFirstOccurrence ( key );
map.remove ( key );
}
public int size () {
return map.size ();
}
public String toString() {
return map.toString ();
}
}
The queue.removeFirstOccurrence is a potentially expensive operation if you have a large cache. One could take LinkedList as an example and add a reverse lookup hash map from element to node to make remove operations A LOT FASTER and more consistent. I started too, but then realized I don't need it. But... maybe...
When put is called, the key gets added to the queue. When get is called, the key gets removed and re-added to the top of the queue.
If your cache is small and the building an item is expensive then this should be a good cache. If your cache is really large, then the linear search could be a bottle neck especially if you don't have hot areas of cache. The more intense the hot spots, the faster the linear search as hot items are always at the top of the linear search. Anyway... what is needed for this to go faster is write another LinkedList that has a remove operation that has reverse element to node lookup for remove, then removing would be about as fast as removing a key from a hash map.
If you have a cache under 1,000 items, this should work out fine.
Here is a simple test to show its operations in action.
public class LruCacheTest {
@Test
public void test () {
LruCache<Integer, Integer> cache = new LruCacheNormal<> ( 4 );
cache.put ( 0, 0 );
cache.put ( 1, 1 );
cache.put ( 2, 2 );
cache.put ( 3, 3 );
boolean ok = cache.size () == 4 || die ( "size" + cache.size () );
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 0 ) == 0 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 3 ) == 3 || die ();
cache.put ( 4, 4 );
cache.put ( 5, 5 );
ok |= cache.size () == 4 || die ( "size" + cache.size () );
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 0 ) == null || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 1 ) == null || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 2 ) == 2 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 3 ) == 3 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 4 ) == 4 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 5 ) == 5 || die ();
if ( !ok ) die ();
}
}
The last LRU cache was single threaded, and please don't wrap it in a synchronized anything....
Here is a stab at a concurrent version.
import java.util.Deque;
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class ConcurrentLruCache<KEY, VALUE> implements LruCache<KEY,VALUE> {
private final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock ();
private final Map<KEY, VALUE> map = new ConcurrentHashMap<> ();
private final Deque<KEY> queue = new LinkedList<> ();
private final int limit;
public ConcurrentLruCache ( int limit ) {
this.limit = limit;
}
@Override
public void put ( KEY key, VALUE value ) {
VALUE oldValue = map.put ( key, value );
if ( oldValue != null ) {
removeThenAddKey ( key );
} else {
addKey ( key );
}
if (map.size () > limit) {
map.remove ( removeLast() );
}
}
@Override
public VALUE get ( KEY key ) {
removeThenAddKey ( key );
return map.get ( key );
}
private void addKey(KEY key) {
lock.lock ();
try {
queue.addFirst ( key );
} finally {
lock.unlock ();
}
}
private KEY removeLast( ) {
lock.lock ();
try {
final KEY removedKey = queue.removeLast ();
return removedKey;
} finally {
lock.unlock ();
}
}
private void removeThenAddKey(KEY key) {
lock.lock ();
try {
queue.removeFirstOccurrence ( key );
queue.addFirst ( key );
} finally {
lock.unlock ();
}
}
private void removeFirstOccurrence(KEY key) {
lock.lock ();
try {
queue.removeFirstOccurrence ( key );
} finally {
lock.unlock ();
}
}
@Override
public VALUE getSilent ( KEY key ) {
return map.get ( key );
}
@Override
public void remove ( KEY key ) {
removeFirstOccurrence ( key );
map.remove ( key );
}
@Override
public int size () {
return map.size ();
}
public String toString () {
return map.toString ();
}
}
The main differences are the use of the ConcurrentHashMap instead of HashMap, and the use of the Lock (I could have gotten away with synchronized, but...).
I have not tested it under fire, but it seems like a simple LRU cache that might work out in 80% of use cases where you need a simple LRU map.
I welcome feedback, except the why don't you use library a, b, or c. The reason I don't always use a library is because I don't always want every war file to be 80MB, and I write libraries so I tend to make the libs plug-able with a good enough solution in place and someone can plug-in another cache provider if they like. :) I never know when someone might need Guava or ehcache or something else I don't want to include them, but if I make caching plug-able, I will not exclude them either.
Reduction of dependencies has its own reward. I love to get some feedback on how to make this even simpler or faster or both.
Also if anyone knows of a ready to go....
Ok.. I know what you are thinking... Why doesn't he just use removeEldest entry from LinkedHashMap, and well I should but.... but.. but.. That would be a FIFO not an LRU and we were trying to implement a LRU.
Map<KEY, VALUE> map = new LinkedHashMap<KEY, VALUE> () {
@Override
protected boolean removeEldestEntry ( Map.Entry<KEY, VALUE> eldest ) {
return this.size () > limit;
}
};
This test fails for the above code...
cache.get ( 2 );
cache.get ( 3 );
cache.put ( 6, 6 );
cache.put ( 7, 7 );
ok |= cache.size () == 4 || die ( "size" + cache.size () );
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 2 ) == 2 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 3 ) == 3 || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 4 ) == null || die ();
ok |= cache.getSilent ( 5 ) == null || die ();
So here is a quick and dirty FIFO cache using removeEldestEntry.
import java.util.*;
public class FifoCache<KEY, VALUE> implements LruCache<KEY,VALUE> {
final int limit;
Map<KEY, VALUE> map = new LinkedHashMap<KEY, VALUE> () {
@Override
protected boolean removeEldestEntry ( Map.Entry<KEY, VALUE> eldest ) {
return this.size () > limit;
}
};
public LruCacheNormal ( int limit ) {
this.limit = limit;
}
public void put ( KEY key, VALUE value ) {
map.put ( key, value );
}
public VALUE get ( KEY key ) {
return map.get ( key );
}
public VALUE getSilent ( KEY key ) {
return map.get ( key );
}
public void remove ( KEY key ) {
map.remove ( key );
}
public int size () {
return map.size ();
}
public String toString() {
return map.toString ();
}
}
FIFOs are fast. No searching around. You could front a FIFO in front of an LRU and that would handle most hot entries quite nicely. A better LRU is going to need that reverse element to Node feature.
Anyway... now that I wrote some code, let me go through the other answers and see what I missed... the first time I scanned them.
LinkedHashMap is O(1), but requires synchronization. No need to reinvent the wheel there.
2 options for increasing concurrency:
1.
Create multiple LinkedHashMap, and hash into them:
example: LinkedHashMap[4], index 0, 1, 2, 3. On the key do key%4 (or binary OR on [key, 3]) to pick which map to do a put/get/remove.
2.
You could do an 'almost' LRU by extending ConcurrentHashMap, and having a linked hash map like structure in each of the regions inside of it. Locking would occur more granularly than a LinkedHashMap that is synchronized. On a put or putIfAbsent only a lock on the head and tail of the list is needed (per region). On a remove or get the whole region needs to be locked. I'm curious if Atomic linked lists of some sort might help here -- probably so for the head of the list. Maybe for more.
The structure would not keep the total order, but only the order per region. As long as the number of entries is much larger than the number of regions, this is good enough for most caches. Each region will have to have its own entry count, this would be used rather than the global count for the eviction trigger.
The default number of regions in a ConcurrentHashMap is 16, which is plenty for most servers today.
would be easier to write and faster under moderate concurrency.
would be more difficult to write but scale much better at very high concurrency. It would be slower for normal access (just as
ConcurrentHashMapis slower thanHashMapwhere there is no concurrency)