I am writing a Codec to process messages sent over TCP using a bespoke wire protocol. During the decode process I create a number of Strings, BigDecimals and dates. The client-server access patterns mean that it is common for the client to issue a request and then decode thousands of response messages, which results in a large number of duplicate Strings, BigDecimals, etc.
Therefore I have created an InternPool<T> class allowing me to intern each class of object. Internally, the pool uses a WeakHashMap<T, WeakReference<T>>. For example:
InternPool<BigDecimal> pool = new InternPool<BigDecimal>();
...
// Read BigDecimal from in buffer and then intern.
BigDecimal quantity = pool.intern(readBigDecimal(in));
My question: I am using InternPool for BigDecimal but should I consider also using it for String instead of String's intern() method, which I believe uses PermGen space? What is the advantage of using PermGen space?
It is likely that the JVM's String.intern() pool will be faster. AFAIK, it is implemented in native code, so it should be faster and use less space than a pool implemented using WeakHashMap and WeakReference. You would need to do some careful benchmarking to confirm this.
However, unless you have huge numbers of long-lived duplicate objects, I doubt that interning (either in permGen or with your own pools) will make much difference. And if the ratio of unique to duplicate objects is too low, then interning will just increase the number of live objects (making the GC take longer) and reduce performance due the overheads of interning, and so on. So I would also advocate benchmarking the "intern" versus "no intern" approaches.