Develop Reference

Why recyclerview is faster than listview [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Android Recyclerview vs ListView with Viewholder
(7 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I was reading about the difference b/w recyclerview and listview and found out that recyclerview is faster than listview.
I tried to search online but not found any satisfactory answer I know it is used ViewHolder pattern and Notifying adapter but what does it does intearlly so it is faster?

Recycler View you could say is an efficient way to create list of views.
If you have 1000 items like ur contact list , and If ur visible screen can show only 10 items at once, it will Create only 10+1 (or +2) Views and as u scroll , items/views that left will be reused (not create) to show new data.
Recycler View by default does this, where as List View by default doesn't do.

There are some differences between these two views.
ListView is a bit heavy and it has a lot of responsibilities. Whenever we have to handle the list, such as to configure it in some way, the only way to do this is through the ListView object or inside the adapter.
A lot of bad things in the ListView were fixed or changed in the RecyclerView. It’s more efficient by default, the layout is separated and we have more possibilities over the data set inside the adapter.
These are some crucial differences between ListView and RecyclerView:
1 ViewHolder
The ViewHolder pattern allows us to make our list scrolling act smoothly. It stores list row views references and, thanks to this, calling the findViewById() method only occurs a couple of times, rather than for the entire dataset and on each bind view.
The RecyclerView’s adapter forces us to use the ViewHolder pattern. The creating part (inflating the layout and finding views) and updating the views is split into two methods — onCreateViewHolder() and onBindViewHolder().
The ListView, on the other hand, doesn’t give us that kind of protection by default, so without implementing the ViewHolder pattern inside the getView() method, we’ll end with inefficient scrolling in our list.
2 LayoutManager
The LayoutManager takes responsibility for layouting row views. Thanks to this, RecyclerView doesn’t have to think about how to position the row view. This class gives us the opportunity to choose the way that we want to show the row views and how to scroll the list. For example, if we want to scroll our list vertically or horizontally, we can choose LinearLayoutManager. For grids, it is more suitable to choose the GridLayoutManager.
Previously, with the use of the ListView, we were only able to create a vertical-scrolling list, so it wasn’t that flexible. If we wanted grids on our list, we had to choose the other widget for that — GridView.
3 ItemDecoration
A duty of the ItemDecoration is simple in theory – add some decorations for the list row views – but in practice, it’s that simple to implement if we want to create a custom one. In this case, we should extend the ItemDecoration class and implement our solution. For example, the RecyclerView list has no dividers between rows by default and it’s consistent with the Material Design guidelines. However, if we want to add a divider for some reason, we can use DividerItemDecoration and add it to the RecyclerView. In case we use the ListView, we have to figure out rows decorations by ourselves. There is no helper class like ItemDecoration for this widget.
4 ItemAnimator
The last but not least component of RecyclerView that I want to mention is ItemAnimator. As we can expect, it’s handling row views animations like list appearance and disappearance, adding or removing particular views and so on. By default, RecyclerView’s list animations are nice and smooth. Of course, we can change that by creating our own ItemAnimator, which is also not that easy. To make it easier, we should extend the SimpleItemAnimator class and implement the methods that we need (just add animations to a ViewHolder’s views). To be honest, implementing animations on the ListView was a pain. Again, we had to figure out how we want to handle them.
5 Notifying adapter
We have a couple of cool notifiers on the RecyclerView’s adapter. We are still able to use notifyDataSetChanged() but there are also ones for particular list elements, like notifyItemInserted(), notifyItemRemoved() or even notifyItemChanged() and more. We should use the most appropriate ones for what is actually happening, so the proper animations will fire correctly.
Using ListView, we were able to use just notifyDataSetChanged() on the adapter and then had to handle the rest ourselves, again.

Because of ViewHolder Pattern.
Thats was the simplest answer. Now for some details.
What recycler view does is what it's name indicates "Recycle", yes it recycles items, and it does it with the help of ViewHolder Pattern.
By Using ViewHolder we do-not need to call findViewByID() every time we go through getView()method. The reference for all rows are stored in-memory. This increases the performance significantly, as findViewByID()is a heavy process.
Hope this clears your confusion.

Nested RecyclerView creates all ViewHolders at once

I have a rather complicated List with nested RecyclerViews. I get it that nested RecyclerViews aren't the best solution, but in my case it is one of few solutions that create structured code and meet the requirements. I have attached an image of the structure. You can take telegram as an example to improve your understanding of the structure. Basically I have an outer RecyclerView RV-1 with Items RV-1-Item and an inner RecyclerView RV-2 with Items RV-2-Item. So far so good, my problem is that the outer RecyclerView recycles views as intended, but if one of the RV-1-Items comes into view, all ViewHolders of RV-2 are created (That means that sometimes more than 100 ViewHolders are created). To sum it all up my question is how to force the inner RecyclerView RV-2 to recycle ViewHolders as well.
I know that the inner RecyclerView RV-2 has to have a hight of wrap_content because it depends in the count of the inner items, also i cannot set setHasFixedHeigth(true) (and I don't know if it would help) because during runtime new RV-2-Items can be added into RV-2. I also tried to set setNestedScrollingEnabled(false) on RV-2 because I read a lot about it online but it didn't help me either.
So basically this is how I configure
RV-1
layoutManager = LinearLayoutManager(context)
isNestedScrollingEnabled = false
RV-2
setHasFixedSize(true)
layoutManager = LinearLayoutManager(context).apply {
reverseLayout = true
}
In addition to that I have some ItemDecorators but they only create the space between the items, so they shouldn't have to do anything with the problem.
To sum it all up:
The outer RV-1 recycles it ViewHolders as intended but the inner RV-2 creates all ViewHolders at once, even if they are not on screen. I assume that this is the case because RV-2 has a height of wrap_content and when the layout_height need to be measured it needs to create all views. THE QUESTION: Is there a way to force RV-2 to recycle its views?
EDIT:
Also I am using a shared RecycledViewPool between all RV-2 RecyclerViews but that isn't really related to the problem, because even if the ViewHolders are shared between the RecyclerViews, an RV-2 RecyclerView shouldn't create ViewHolders that aren't visible when it is initialised.
EDIT 2:
A lot of comments and related questions say that two vertical nested RecyclerViews isn't a possible thing in android, in case all visitors of this question think the same my question is: How would you implement such a structure. It is obvious that I could make a single view which has a IM (Round Image View) and RV-2-Item and just make the IM invisible when it isn't needed. In my opinion this somehow makes the structure more complicated. Furthermore a requirement is that the IM on the left side of RV-1-Item must have the ability to move up and down in RV-1-Item, which is obviously easier with my current structure.
EDIT 3: (My last one I promise)
The Problem I have shown can be solved by using the approche I explain in my EDIT 2, even if it isn't the best solution it would work. But the issue is that I have an even more complex screen where this approche wouldn't work anymore because I have three nested RecyclerViews. I could get that number down to two with the approche of EDIT 2 but I would still be left with two nested RecyclerViews and I cannot think of a workaround that could solve the problem of the remaining two nested RecyclerViews. I attached an image of the even more complex screen which contains a the interface of the app with marked sections to help you to understand the structure.

(Not quite an answer to your specific question in solving "how to not get the RecyclerView to create all items at once", but something that most likely will fix your specific problem by not using nested recyclerviews at all)
I would suggest (in a quite similar way as already suggested in this answer), to flatten your feed into one recyclerview
(No matter how much you tweak your nested recyclerview architecture, imho it will never be as performant than having just one recyclerview, and as you don't need nested scrolling (I guess), just one recycler view should be your best option).
I would propose to not think of your feed in the way your data is structured, but in a way you want to show it and how it can be split into smaller items which are "look alikes" / consist of the same things.
From your screenshot I would see for example the following items / view types for each chat item:
Chat header (the thing with the icon and the text "New Group")
the user badge (the picture with the text "Jürgen")
a message item (one bubble of text, so e.g. in your screenshot at the bottom there would actually be 3 of those items, one for each message)
The section with the date and the action/reply items.
Those items are way smaller than a whole chat item, and therefore can be faster created / recycled.
For each of those items, create a view-type and a view-holder, and treat them as seperate recycler-view items.
The recyclerview will, when the getItemViewType method is correctly used, create / prepare the correct type of view for the position you need.
For this to work, the adapter needs to add some logic, as your data most likely will be structured something like
a list of chats, and each chat has a name and some messages to display
and we need it as
the first 6 elements are for the first chat, where the first position
is the header, the second the user badge, the next 3 items are message
items and then we need an action item.
So you basically need to calculate how many recyclerview items you will need to show each single chat-item, which could be a calculation along the lines:
1 chat header item + 1 user badge item + 3 message items + 1 action/reply item = 6
This calculation needs to be performed for each chat item of your data list separately.
So if you only have this single chat item in your list of data to display, you actually need to tell the adapter to create 6 items (by returning in this case 6 at getItemViewCount()).
Then, you need to tell the adapter using the getItemViewType(position: Int) function, at which position of the recyclerview which type of view the adapter needs to prepare.
So there you again need some logic to say that e.g. on position 0 the chat header for the first chat item should be, at position 1 the user badge for the first chat item, at position 2-4 message items should be, on position 5 the action item and at position 6 the chat header for the second chat should be and so on
(again, the logic then needs to be in place for all chat items, and it can get really messy / complicated, as to calculate each chat items view types for a position, e.g. all prior chat element view counts need to be recalculated, too (in order to know at which recycler-view position your current chat item starts)).
As this tends to blow your adapter up, I would suggest (if you don't already do so), to get some manager / delegate architecture in there.
So e.g. have a delegate for each view type, and a manager which calculates the number of recyclerview items / view types needed for each chat item.
Just for reference:
Some time ago we had a situation similar to yours
(a recycler-view with a design similar to a social media feed, which should show the first n comments in the feed and we displayed the comments for each feed item (which was a recyclerview item) with another recyclerview in the item) and also after some troubles with performance which we could not manage to resolve just flattened the recyclerview, and never had performance troubles again.

A lot of comments and related questions say that two vertical nested RecyclerViews isn't a possible thing in android
This is not true; whoever says this is not a thing has not done it and thinks it's not possible. It is possible, albeit with complications, side-effects, and most likely, the annoyance of your users when they tap around trying to scroll up/down and the wrong touch interceptor wins.
Why is this a problem?
On iOS, when you try to do something that the platform devs didn't think it was good, most people and other devs scream at you: don't fight the framework!!!.
On Android, we see the craziest Java (and now Kotlin) implementations of things that makes you wonder what are we -developers- learning at school and what are we teaching?! and yet nobody says anything (for the most part) :p
The truth is, you're trying to design a complicated user interaction and data transformation, and yet, your attempt is biased by trying to use the data "as you have it" (which implies dealing with these two different RV/Adapters), as opposed to do what one should do: transform the data for presentation.
This leads me to the next question:
How would you implement such a structure.
Well, for starters, I don't know how your data looks like, nor where it's coming from; I don't know what your users can do with your data, outside of the obvious scrolling.
I also don't know how your data wants to be presented, aside from your mock up.
But I do know the situation very well. A list of things, which also contain their own list of things.
Case: The List of List
It is doable; you can have a list and inside said list, have another list. I've done it. I've seen it done by others. I've used it. I also never liked the idea of having this "small" scrollable thing, fighting to see who scrolls first when I tap "the wrong place".
I would not do this. If the inner-list is big (say more than 3 items per outer item), I would not present it as scrollable content.
What I would do (considering the things I do not know about your problem) is to have a single list displaying all the content properly flattened.
This has a issue with your content:
What if the inner-lists are super long, wouldn't this cause them all to be displayed? YES, and that's why I wouldn't do it this way if the data (as you described) can have 100 items. An options is to display the 3 first items with a "more" link to now open the inner-list "full screen"; this is 10 times better than the nested list from a user's PoV and from the technical aspect of it.
Another alternative, is to keep this single long list (RV-1) and let users "expand" the list to launch another full-screen list depicting the contents of RV-2, in a separate window. This is even better.
The time you'll spend implementing this and getting rid of the mess of code you probably have right now, will make you wonder why didn't you suggest this in the first place.
If this is something you absolutely cannot do, then I cannot offer you much more advice, for now you're tied to unknown to me business/product rules. Ultimately, the price will be paid by the users of your app, when they have to scroll that nightmare :)
Take a Step Back
Let me be clear, I am not criticizing you or your solution; I'm merely pointing out that, in my experience, this "pattern" you have here is not a good user experience.
Format your data for presentation, not the other way around. Your data should be properly shaped so it can be properly presented with the tools you have.
You're fighting against the tools Android is giving you; you're giving a RecyclerView (and its adapter) a lot of new problems to deal with when it already has a lot going on.
Think about it: RecyclerViews have to do a lot of things; Adapters must also conform to a few interfaces, ensure things are dispatched as soon as possible, calculate Diffs (if using a ListAdapter<T,V>), etc. Activities/Fragments? They have a lot on their plates dealing with ... well "Android"; now you're asking all these components to also handle a complicated scenario of scrolling content, touch recognition, event handling, view inflation, etc.
All this, while expecting each view to take 16ms or less (to stay above 60 FPS scrolling speed, your view/viewHolder should not take more than 16ms to do all it needs.
Instead, I'm asking you to take a step back, grab the data you have, compose it, transform it, map it, and create the data structure that can better serve the components you have (a RV + Adapter + a simple View).
Good luck :)

Should we use RecyclerView to replace ListView? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Android Docs say:
The RecyclerView widget is a more advanced and flexible version of
ListView. This widget is a container for displaying large data sets
that can be scrolled very efficiently by maintaining a limited number
of views. Use the RecyclerView widget when you have data collections
whose elements change at runtime based on user action or network
events
Actually ListView can do all of the above if efficiency doesn't matter, and we have found many issues when we use RecyclerView to replace ListView:
There is no onItemClickListener() for list item selection - solution
No divider between list items - solution
No built-in overlap selector, there is no visual feedback when you click list item - solution
No addHeaderView for list header - solution
Maybe more issues ...
So when we use RecyclerView to replace ListView, we have to do much extra coding to reach the same effect as ListView.
QUESTION:
Is it worth that we replace ListView with RecyclerView totally ?
if not then in which case should we better use RecyclerView instead ListView, and vice versa ?

If ListView works for you, there is no reason to migrate.
If you are writing a new UI, you might be better off with RecyclerView.
RecyclerView is powerful when you need to customize your list or you want better animations. Those convenience methods in ListView caused a lot of trouble to people which is why RecyclerView provides a more flexible solution to them.
The major change you need to make for migration is in your adapter. If you want to keep calling notifyDataSetChanged, you lose most of the animation & binding benefits. But if you can change your adapter to dispatch detailed notify events (added/removed/moved/updated), then you get much better animations and performance. These events let RecyclerView choose correct animations and it also helps it avoid unnecessary onBind calls. You'll get a huge benefit if your item views are complex. Also, going forward, there will be more components around RecyclerView.

1 You can use an interface to provide a click listener. I use this technique with ListViews, too.
2 No divider: Simply add in your row a View with a width of match_parent and a height of 1dp and give it a background color.
3 Simply use a StateList selector for the row background.
4 addHeaderView can be avoided in ListViews, too: simply put the Header outside the View.
So, if efficiency is your concern, then yes, it's a good idea to replace a ListView with a RecyclerView.

I had until recently still been using ListView for very simple lists. For example if I want to display a simple list of text options...
I based that decision on 'human factors', that creating a simple ListView with less code is better if performance is immaterial. I often think of a professor in college that was fond of saying: "My teacher the great Niclaus Wirth, the inventor of Pascal, used to say if a program has more than 50 lines of code it is sure to be wrong..."
But what has convinced me to stop using ListView is that it has recently been moved into the "Legacy" category in the Android Studio design tool along with RelativeLayout.
I think this is 'soft' form of 'deprecation'. It would be too disruptive if it was actually deprecated and all conscientious developers moved their code to RecyclerView.
Further, the intro to ListView warns right at the top that RecyclerView is a better option: "For a more modern, flexible, and performant approach to displaying lists, use RecyclerView."
https://developer.android.com/reference/android/widget/ListView
Also, the guide to ListView is still talking about cursor loaders, but then getSupportCursorLoader() itself has just been deprecated in API 28.
https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/ui/layout/listview
Recent enhancements to Android Studio:
File -> New -> Fragment -> Fragment (List)
This gives us a fully working RecylerView populated with basic text. That gets rid of my last real reason for using ListView because it is now just as easy to set up a basic RecylerView.
In summary, I don't intend to use ListView at all for new development because labelling it has 'legacy' is one step away from deprecating it.

The only case when it's still fine to use ListView is when the list is static . For example: navigation.
For everything else use RecyclerView. Since RecyclerView deals with recycling it will be easier to do visual related things that were tightly coupled in ListView, like changing position / rearrangement, animation (in fact it comes with RecyclerView.ItemAnimator), custom layouts.
Also if you want to use CardView I believe it's the only way to go.

A great alternative is using the BaseAdapter. It supports the use Viewholder pattern and mine contains 100+ rows with bitmaps and buttons and it runs very smooth.

Android engineering: ListView versus just a dynamic LinearLayout

When you are working with a long, big list, certainly one should use ListView because it handles cell recycling.
Notice here, for example Can i use nested linearlayouts instead of list view, for a big list? the OP is asking about ListView verses a dynamic LinearList -- the answer is "have to use a ListView, because of recycling"
Now, say you are making a short list -- imagine say a popup with only 10 or 20 items. It may even fit all on the one screen, so there's no recycling.
In fact, is there any difference between using a ListView and just using a LinearLayout, and dynamically populating the little views inside it?
It seems to me that the latter is in many cases much simpler, more elegant, and easier to work with. But I could well be missing something that seasoned Android engineers know about.
Should I just use an ordinary LinearList (populate it dynamically) for lists where recycling is not relevant? What's the usual, and why? Cheers!
{Incidentally, for popup cases, is there some better, lightweight method for "choose one from a popup-list" that I'm too silly to know about?! :) )

ListView(and other lists) supports very useful idea: splitting data and view. These parts could be changed at any time so it's important to support flexibility. And it could be solved by special mediator object: Adapter. Adapter roughly speaking says how to fill your view with particular data item.
So I'm sure that if you decide to use LinearLayout sooner or later you will implement you own Adapter.

If you used dynamic linear view then rendering the view will take more time as compare to listview. In listview we are rendering views which are visible only but if you used dynamic linear view then its problem.

Is a simple 50 item list enough to justify using a ListView?

In the Google I/O 2010 talk about ListView they say you might not need to use a ListView with a bounded and reasonable number of rows. They state if you are dealing with a reasonable number of rows it is possible to just lay them out in a ScrollView.
I'm curious what people find "reasonble length" means in practice.
Would a list of 50 items with each row's views just having a few strings be reasonable to layout without using a ListView? How about 12?
I'm used to using UITableViews on iPhone for most UI so I'm inclined to use ListViews on Android but I also want to be aware it might be overkill for some scenarios and I have a really limited understanding of perf on android presently.

ListView is really the best option for anything over 3 items, it is a good option for even 2 or 3 items. If not you'll end up writing a bunch of code that converts indexes to individual variables instead of arrays, database rows, or other data structure.

It's not only about the number of items but also about whether or not your data collection will be dynamically updated. If you know you will never update the list while it's on screen and it doesn't have many items then a LinearLayout will do just fine.

In the Google I/O 2010 talk about ListView they say you might not need to use a ListView with a bounded and reasonable number of rows. They state if you are dealing with a reasonable number of rows it is possible to just lay them out in a ScrollView.
Hmmm, I can understand the logic up to a point but in reality using a ListActivity, for example, as your base class makes things very simple. OK, if you have a static list of only a dozen or so lines of text (one for each list 'item') then using a ScrollView containing TextViews would be an alternative but in reality using the adapter approach to ListViews is a lot more flexible in my opinion.
Would a list of 50 items with each row's views just having a few strings be reasonable to layout without using a ListView? How about 12?
No, if each list item has a few strings to be laid out then custom list item layouts together with a ListView and a custom adapter are basically a must.