Which one is faster: Java heap or native memory?

One of the advantages of the Java language is that you do not need to deal with memory allocation and deallocation. Whenever you instantiate an object with the new keyword, the necessary memory is allocated in the JVM heap. The heap is then managed by the garbate collector which reclaims the memory after the object goes out-of-scope. However there is a backdoor to reach the off-heap native memory from the JVM. In this article I am going to show how an object can be stored in memory as a sequence of bytes and how you can choose between storing these bytes in heap memory or in direct (i.e. native) memory. Then I will try to conclude which one is faster to access from the JVM: heap memory or direct memory.

Allocating and Deallocating with Unsafe

The sun.misc.Unsafe class allows you to allocate and deallocate native memory from Java like you were calling malloc andfree from C. The memory you create goes off the heap and are not managed by the garbage collector so it becomes your responsibility to deallocate the memory after you are done with it. Here is my Direct utility class to gain access to the Unsafeclass.

public class Direct implements Memory {
    private static Unsafe unsafe;
    private static boolean AVAILABLE = false;
    static {
        try {
            Field field = Unsafe.class.getDeclaredField("theUnsafe");
            unsafe = (Unsafe)field.get(null);
            AVAILABLE = true;
        } catch(Exception e) {
            // NOOP: throw exception later when allocating memory
    public static boolean isAvailable() {
        return AVAILABLE;
    private static Direct INSTANCE = null;
    public static Memory getInstance() {
        if (INSTANCE == null) {
            INSTANCE = new Direct();
        return INSTANCE;
    private Direct() {
    public long alloc(long size) {
        if (!AVAILABLE) {
            throw new IllegalStateException("sun.misc.Unsafe is not accessible!");
        return unsafe.allocateMemory(size);
    public void free(long address) {
    public final long getLong(long address) {
        return unsafe.getLong(address);
    public final void putLong(long address, long value) {
        unsafe.putLong(address, value);
    public final int getInt(long address) {
        return unsafe.getInt(address);
    public final void putInt(long address, int value) {
        unsafe.putInt(address, value);

Placing an object in native memory

Let’s move the following Java object to native memory:

public class SomeObject {
    private long someLong;
    private int someInt;
    public long getSomeLong() {
        return someLong;
    public void setSomeLong(long someLong) {
        this.someLong = someLong;
    public int getSomeInt() {
        return someInt;
    public void setSomeInt(int someInt) {
        this.someInt = someInt;

Note that all we are doing below is saving its properties in the Memory:

public class SomeMemoryObject {
    private final static int someLong_OFFSET = 0;
    private final static int someInt_OFFSET = 8;
    private final static int SIZE = 8 + 4; // one long + one int
    private long address;
    private final Memory memory;
    public SomeMemoryObject(Memory memory) {
        this.memory = memory;
        this.address = memory.alloc(SIZE);
    public void finalize() {
    public final void setSomeLong(long someLong) {
        memory.putLong(address + someLong_OFFSET, someLong);
    public final long getSomeLong() {
        return memory.getLong(address + someLong_OFFSET);
    public final void setSomeInt(int someInt) {
        memory.putInt(address + someInt_OFFSET, someInt);
    public final int getSomeInt() {
        return memory.getInt(address + someInt_OFFSET);

Now let’s benchmark read/write access for two arrays: one with millions of SomeObjects and another one with millions ofSomeMemoryObjects. The code can be seen here and the results are below:

// with JIT:
Number of Objects:  1,000     1,000,000     10,000,000    60,000,000
Heap Avg Write:      107         2.30          2.51         2.58       
Native Avg Write:    305         6.65          5.94         5.26
Heap Avg Read:       61          0.31          0.28         0.28
Native Avg Read:     309         3.50          2.96         2.16
// without JIT: (-Xint)
Number of Objects:  1,000     1,000,000     10,000,000    60,000,000
Heap Avg Write:      104         107           105         102       
Native Avg Write:    292         293           300         297
Heap Avg Read:       59          63            60          58
Native Avg Read:     297         298           302         299

Conclusion: Crossing the JVM barrier to reach native memory is approximately 10 times slower for reads and 2 times slower for writes. But notice that each SomeMemoryObject is allocating its own native memory space so the reads and writes are not continuous, in other words, each direct memory object reads and writes from and to its own allocated memory space that can be located anywhere. Let’s benchmark read/write access to continuous direct and heap memory to try to determine which one is faster.

Accessing large chunks of continuous memory

The test consist of allocating a byte array in the heap and a corresponding chunk of native memory to hold the same amount of data. Then we sequentially write and read a couple of times to measure which one is faster. We also test random access to any location of the array and compare the results. The sequential test can be seen here. The random one can be seenhere. The results:

// with JIT and sequential access:
Number of Objects:  1,000     1,000,000     1,000,000,000
Heap Avg Write:      12          0.34           0.35 
Native Avg Write:    102         0.71           0.69 
Heap Avg Read:       12          0.29           0.28 
Native Avg Read:     110         0.32           0.32
// without JIT and sequential access: (-Xint)
Number of Objects:  1,000     1,000,000      10,000,000
Heap Avg Write:      8           8              8
Native Avg Write:    91          92             94
Heap Avg Read:       10          10             10
Native Avg Read:     91          90             94
// with JIT and random access:
Number of Objects:  1,000     1,000,000     1,000,000,000
Heap Avg Write:      61          1.01           1.12
Native Avg Write:    151         0.89           0.90 
Heap Avg Read:       59          0.89           0.92 
Native Avg Read:     156         0.78           0.84
// without JIT and random access: (-Xint)
Number of Objects:  1,000     1,000,000      10,000,000
Heap Avg Write:      55          55              55
Native Avg Write:    141         142             140
Heap Avg Read:       55          55              55 
Native Avg Read:     138         140             138

Conclusion: Heap memory is always faster than direct memory for sequential access. For random access, heap memory is a little bit slower for big chunks of data, but not much.

Final Conclusion

Working with Native memory from Java has its usages such as when you need to work with large amounts of data (> 2 gigabytes) or when you want to escape from the garbage collector [1]. However in terms of latency, direct memory access from the JVM is not faster than accessing the heap as demonstrated above. The results actually make sense since crossing the JVM barrier must have a cost. That’s the same dilema between using a direct or a heap ByteBuffer. The speed advantage of the direct ByteBuffer is not access speed but the ability to talk directly with the operating system’s native I/O operations. Another great example discussed by Peter Lawrey is the use of memory-mapped files when working with time-series.

Which one is faster: Java heap or native memory?

  • qq_43638135
    妲己再美究为妃: 博主没有想过自己接一些私活干吗?我现在还没毕业,但是我也确实听说外挂市场自动化游戏脚本市场挺火热的,并且报酬也很丰厚,但是具体的我也不是很清楚,求解答。 (1个月前 #47楼) 查看回复(2) 举报 回复