Pass By Reference VS Pass by ValuePassing Strings by value causes memory problemHow to pass the string value to Opportunity owner field from custom object's vf page?Can a collection be passed to a method by reference?Comparison fails when converting Opportunity from/to JSONMultiselection paramter for picklist datatype soqlfault string: No such parameter param defined for the operation, please check the WSDL for the serviceHow to retrive second created opportunity on accountHow to query more than 50000 records in start method of batch apex?How to pass in a List<String> to a parameter when calling a class method in Test Classunable to pass an object to another method in apex
Do I have to worry about players making “bad” choices on level up?
Rivers without rain
Repelling Blast: Must targets always be pushed back?
How to make a pipeline wait for end-of-file or stop after an error?
Does Gita support doctrine of eternal cycle of birth and death for evil people?
Does the sign matter for proportionality?
What was the first Intel x86 processor with "Base + Index * Scale + Displacement" addressing mode?
The Defining Moment
What does KSP mean?
What makes accurate emulation of old systems a difficult task?
Critique of timeline aesthetic
How to solve constants out of the internal energy equation?
Please, smoke with good manners
Is it possible to determine the symmetric encryption method used by output size?
What is the difference between `command a[bc]d` and `command `ab,cd`
how to find the equation of a circle given points of the circle
How did Captain America manage to do this?
How can I place the product on a social media post better?
Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?
Controversial area of mathematics
Was there a shared-world project before "Thieves World"?
Don’t seats that recline flat defeat the purpose of having seatbelts?
Will a top journal at least read my introduction?
Does holding a wand and speaking its command word count as V/S/M spell components?
Pass By Reference VS Pass by Value
Passing Strings by value causes memory problemHow to pass the string value to Opportunity owner field from custom object's vf page?Can a collection be passed to a method by reference?Comparison fails when converting Opportunity from/to JSONMultiselection paramter for picklist datatype soqlfault string: No such parameter param defined for the operation, please check the WSDL for the serviceHow to retrive second created opportunity on accountHow to query more than 50000 records in start method of batch apex?How to pass in a List<String> to a parameter when calling a class method in Test Classunable to pass an object to another method in apex
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Context Around this Code: I am making a schedulable class run each Sunday to track a couple of metrics important to the team.
Question: I am looking to consolidate DML operations and a big part of this is understanding pass by reference vs pass by value.
I want to pass the salesOps user object to the method SDREfficiencyLastWeek. I made the return type void, because I figured that I will be passing this by reference and I can make all the updates in the method without having to anything.
Why I am confused:
https://developer.salesforce.com/blogs/developer-relations/2012/05/passing-parameters-by-reference-and-by-value-in-apex.html
I read the above article and am thrown off by the following statement:
"Non-primitive data type arguments, such as sObjects, are also passed into methods by value. "
If the object is indeed passed by reference, then the query for the salesOps user in my code should be sufficient enough to edit all fields on that object without actually having to state each field in the query.
global class SDREfficientMetricsSchedulable implements Schedulable
global void execute(SchedulableContext sc)
User salesOps = [SELECT ID FROM USER WHERE id = '0056A000002Z3p9QAC'];
List<String> queries = new List<String>();
String contactsWorked_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from contact where LastActivityDate = last_week';
queries.add(contactsWorked_lastWeek);
String demosSet_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from form__c where CreatedDate = last_week';
queries.add(demosSet_lastWeek);
String demosCompleted_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where (stagename = 'Unqualified Demo Completed' OR stagename = 'Qualified Demo Completed' ) and RecordTypeId = '0126A000000yudDQAQ' and CloseDate = last_week';
queries.add(demosCompleted_lastWeek);
String qualifiedDemos_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where RecordTypeId = '0126A0000004Ao6QAE' and isclosed = false and SDR_Owner__c != null and CreatedDate = last_week';
queries.add(qualifiedDemos_lastWeek);
String closedWon_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where RecordTypeId = '0126A0000004Ao6QAE' and iswon = true and SDR_Owner__c != null and CloseDate = last_week';
queries.add(qualifiedDemos_lastWeek);
SDREfficiencyLastWeek(queries, salesOps);
update salesOps;
public void SDREfficiencyLastWeek(List<String> queries, User salesOps )
apex
add a comment |
Context Around this Code: I am making a schedulable class run each Sunday to track a couple of metrics important to the team.
Question: I am looking to consolidate DML operations and a big part of this is understanding pass by reference vs pass by value.
I want to pass the salesOps user object to the method SDREfficiencyLastWeek. I made the return type void, because I figured that I will be passing this by reference and I can make all the updates in the method without having to anything.
Why I am confused:
https://developer.salesforce.com/blogs/developer-relations/2012/05/passing-parameters-by-reference-and-by-value-in-apex.html
I read the above article and am thrown off by the following statement:
"Non-primitive data type arguments, such as sObjects, are also passed into methods by value. "
If the object is indeed passed by reference, then the query for the salesOps user in my code should be sufficient enough to edit all fields on that object without actually having to state each field in the query.
global class SDREfficientMetricsSchedulable implements Schedulable
global void execute(SchedulableContext sc)
User salesOps = [SELECT ID FROM USER WHERE id = '0056A000002Z3p9QAC'];
List<String> queries = new List<String>();
String contactsWorked_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from contact where LastActivityDate = last_week';
queries.add(contactsWorked_lastWeek);
String demosSet_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from form__c where CreatedDate = last_week';
queries.add(demosSet_lastWeek);
String demosCompleted_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where (stagename = 'Unqualified Demo Completed' OR stagename = 'Qualified Demo Completed' ) and RecordTypeId = '0126A000000yudDQAQ' and CloseDate = last_week';
queries.add(demosCompleted_lastWeek);
String qualifiedDemos_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where RecordTypeId = '0126A0000004Ao6QAE' and isclosed = false and SDR_Owner__c != null and CreatedDate = last_week';
queries.add(qualifiedDemos_lastWeek);
String closedWon_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where RecordTypeId = '0126A0000004Ao6QAE' and iswon = true and SDR_Owner__c != null and CloseDate = last_week';
queries.add(qualifiedDemos_lastWeek);
SDREfficiencyLastWeek(queries, salesOps);
update salesOps;
public void SDREfficiencyLastWeek(List<String> queries, User salesOps )
apex
When you query an object from the DB into an SObject in Apex, the SObject in Apex is only populated with the fields you actually state in the query. All other fields are unset (and an attempt to directly read them will fail with an exception). Note, however, that you can set any fields you like in that SObject, whether or not you queried them, and update the object in the DB using that modified state.
– Phil W
5 hours ago
I am assuming the code you have shown is purely for illustration. If this is your production code I recommend you consider avoiding explicit ID references as these do not port between orgs.
– Phil W
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Context Around this Code: I am making a schedulable class run each Sunday to track a couple of metrics important to the team.
Question: I am looking to consolidate DML operations and a big part of this is understanding pass by reference vs pass by value.
I want to pass the salesOps user object to the method SDREfficiencyLastWeek. I made the return type void, because I figured that I will be passing this by reference and I can make all the updates in the method without having to anything.
Why I am confused:
https://developer.salesforce.com/blogs/developer-relations/2012/05/passing-parameters-by-reference-and-by-value-in-apex.html
I read the above article and am thrown off by the following statement:
"Non-primitive data type arguments, such as sObjects, are also passed into methods by value. "
If the object is indeed passed by reference, then the query for the salesOps user in my code should be sufficient enough to edit all fields on that object without actually having to state each field in the query.
global class SDREfficientMetricsSchedulable implements Schedulable
global void execute(SchedulableContext sc)
User salesOps = [SELECT ID FROM USER WHERE id = '0056A000002Z3p9QAC'];
List<String> queries = new List<String>();
String contactsWorked_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from contact where LastActivityDate = last_week';
queries.add(contactsWorked_lastWeek);
String demosSet_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from form__c where CreatedDate = last_week';
queries.add(demosSet_lastWeek);
String demosCompleted_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where (stagename = 'Unqualified Demo Completed' OR stagename = 'Qualified Demo Completed' ) and RecordTypeId = '0126A000000yudDQAQ' and CloseDate = last_week';
queries.add(demosCompleted_lastWeek);
String qualifiedDemos_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where RecordTypeId = '0126A0000004Ao6QAE' and isclosed = false and SDR_Owner__c != null and CreatedDate = last_week';
queries.add(qualifiedDemos_lastWeek);
String closedWon_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where RecordTypeId = '0126A0000004Ao6QAE' and iswon = true and SDR_Owner__c != null and CloseDate = last_week';
queries.add(qualifiedDemos_lastWeek);
SDREfficiencyLastWeek(queries, salesOps);
update salesOps;
public void SDREfficiencyLastWeek(List<String> queries, User salesOps )
apex
Context Around this Code: I am making a schedulable class run each Sunday to track a couple of metrics important to the team.
Question: I am looking to consolidate DML operations and a big part of this is understanding pass by reference vs pass by value.
I want to pass the salesOps user object to the method SDREfficiencyLastWeek. I made the return type void, because I figured that I will be passing this by reference and I can make all the updates in the method without having to anything.
Why I am confused:
https://developer.salesforce.com/blogs/developer-relations/2012/05/passing-parameters-by-reference-and-by-value-in-apex.html
I read the above article and am thrown off by the following statement:
"Non-primitive data type arguments, such as sObjects, are also passed into methods by value. "
If the object is indeed passed by reference, then the query for the salesOps user in my code should be sufficient enough to edit all fields on that object without actually having to state each field in the query.
global class SDREfficientMetricsSchedulable implements Schedulable
global void execute(SchedulableContext sc)
User salesOps = [SELECT ID FROM USER WHERE id = '0056A000002Z3p9QAC'];
List<String> queries = new List<String>();
String contactsWorked_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from contact where LastActivityDate = last_week';
queries.add(contactsWorked_lastWeek);
String demosSet_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from form__c where CreatedDate = last_week';
queries.add(demosSet_lastWeek);
String demosCompleted_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where (stagename = 'Unqualified Demo Completed' OR stagename = 'Qualified Demo Completed' ) and RecordTypeId = '0126A000000yudDQAQ' and CloseDate = last_week';
queries.add(demosCompleted_lastWeek);
String qualifiedDemos_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where RecordTypeId = '0126A0000004Ao6QAE' and isclosed = false and SDR_Owner__c != null and CreatedDate = last_week';
queries.add(qualifiedDemos_lastWeek);
String closedWon_lastWeek = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where RecordTypeId = '0126A0000004Ao6QAE' and iswon = true and SDR_Owner__c != null and CloseDate = last_week';
queries.add(qualifiedDemos_lastWeek);
SDREfficiencyLastWeek(queries, salesOps);
update salesOps;
public void SDREfficiencyLastWeek(List<String> queries, User salesOps )
apex
apex
asked 6 hours ago
Matthew MetrosMatthew Metros
684
684
When you query an object from the DB into an SObject in Apex, the SObject in Apex is only populated with the fields you actually state in the query. All other fields are unset (and an attempt to directly read them will fail with an exception). Note, however, that you can set any fields you like in that SObject, whether or not you queried them, and update the object in the DB using that modified state.
– Phil W
5 hours ago
I am assuming the code you have shown is purely for illustration. If this is your production code I recommend you consider avoiding explicit ID references as these do not port between orgs.
– Phil W
5 hours ago
add a comment |
When you query an object from the DB into an SObject in Apex, the SObject in Apex is only populated with the fields you actually state in the query. All other fields are unset (and an attempt to directly read them will fail with an exception). Note, however, that you can set any fields you like in that SObject, whether or not you queried them, and update the object in the DB using that modified state.
– Phil W
5 hours ago
I am assuming the code you have shown is purely for illustration. If this is your production code I recommend you consider avoiding explicit ID references as these do not port between orgs.
– Phil W
5 hours ago
When you query an object from the DB into an SObject in Apex, the SObject in Apex is only populated with the fields you actually state in the query. All other fields are unset (and an attempt to directly read them will fail with an exception). Note, however, that you can set any fields you like in that SObject, whether or not you queried them, and update the object in the DB using that modified state.
– Phil W
5 hours ago
When you query an object from the DB into an SObject in Apex, the SObject in Apex is only populated with the fields you actually state in the query. All other fields are unset (and an attempt to directly read them will fail with an exception). Note, however, that you can set any fields you like in that SObject, whether or not you queried them, and update the object in the DB using that modified state.
– Phil W
5 hours ago
I am assuming the code you have shown is purely for illustration. If this is your production code I recommend you consider avoiding explicit ID references as these do not port between orgs.
– Phil W
5 hours ago
I am assuming the code you have shown is purely for illustration. If this is your production code I recommend you consider avoiding explicit ID references as these do not port between orgs.
– Phil W
5 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
There's two different meanings of "reference," which is probably the source of confusion even with veteran developers, especially in regards to Apex. Some developers consider passing a variable's memory in to a parameter as "by reference", and literal values as "by value". We see this frequently in languages like C:
#include <stdio.h>
void multiplyByTwoRef(int *source)
// We're modifying the caller's value!
*source = *source * 2;
int multiplyByTwo(int source)
// We're modifying a local copy here.
source = source * 2;
return source;
int main()
int myVar = 5;
multiplyByTwoRef(&myVar); // Here, & means "pass memory address"; this is a reference
printf("%i", myVar);
printf("%i", multiplyByTwo(myVar)); // Here, we output 20 (10 * 2)
printf("%i", myVar); // But we output 10 here again, myVar was not modified
return 0;
In Apex, of course, this doesn't happen; we can't access memory pointers directly, so people tend to call Apex pass-by-value. However, that is simply not true in the most literal sense.
Consider the following code:
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Integer x1 = 5, x2 = x1, x3 = x1, x4 = x1;
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
If you check the debug logs, you'll notice that only 8 bytes were allocated. It's also worth noting that an Integer is 8 bytes. However, we allocated x1, x2, x3, and x4, so we should have 32 bytes of heap usage, right? As it happens, this isn't true; x2, x3, and x4 all have a reference to x1.
You can see the difference if we change the code:
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Integer x1 = 5, x2 = 5, x3 = 5, x4 = 5;
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Now, we've allocated four Integer objects in memory, although they all have the same value, they are not literally the same object.
In Apex, all variables point to an area in heap (or are null). Variables themselves are references. All the time. Apex hides this fact from developers by appearing to have pass-by-value for primitives and pass-by-reference for objects, but that's all it is, an illusion.
The only way one could consider Apex to be pass-by-value is to say that Apex always passes the memory addresses (values) of objects on the heap.
So, to answer your question, yes, if you pass in an sObject record to a method, you're passing a reference to the object on the heap. Any changes you make to the object will affect the caller's version of the object. Passing in a List, or a Map, or a custom class instance, will all affect the original object on the heap.
Note that you can't modify the parameter itself, as that would lose the reference on the heap. It won't affect the original caller's version, because you're creating a new object in memory. To compare:
public static void setFirstName(Contact record, String name)
// This WILL affect the caller's object
record.FirstName = name;
record = new Contact();
// This won't affect the caller's object
record.FirstName = name.repeat(2);
// ...
Contact record = new Contact();
setFirstName(record, 'Sally');
The important thing to remember is that primitives are immutable, and cannot be directly modified. You may as well consider these pass-by-value, even though we're really passing references. Everything else is pass-by-reference, since modifying the object in the parameter will affect the original.
Now I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect Apex does not actually pass primitive parameters in method calls as pointers but rather, as Java would, as actual values. The values are pushed on the stack. Primitives are, at their largest, double values (8 bytes). This excludes String. I would say these should be viewed as non-primitives that are actually simply immutable. The notion of Integer, Decimal etc. is almost certainly the same concept of box types, with auto boxing and unboxing around parameter passing. I accept I could be wrong since I have no access to the Apex runtime code.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
add a comment |
When Apex code calls synchronous Apex code the non-primitive objects are passed by reference - a change to the content of a list, map, set, SObject or custom Apex object is reflected in the caller's context too.
I suggest that the "pass by value" statement in the article is referring to cases such as scheduled apex, batches etc. (asynchronous execution) where the state of the object is serialized to the database, and deserialized back into an object when that code is about to be executed. In this sense the original state of the object (such as a batch) is not impacted by the later, asynchronous execution of the processing in that object.
When you query an object from the DB into an SObject in Apex, the SObject in Apex is only populated with the fields you actually request in the query. All other fields are unset (and an attempt to directly read them will fail with an exception - you can avoid this error by getting the populated fields map and interrogating this map instead). Note, however, that you can set any fields you like in that SObject, whether or not you queried them, and update the object in the DB using that modified state.
That's simply not correct. They're not passed by value; they're actively serialized, thus creating a copy. The original value was still passed in by reference.
– sfdcfox
4 hours ago
I didn't say it was pass by value, just that the original value isn't affected. I even said they are serialized and deserialize.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "459"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f260299%2fpass-by-reference-vs-pass-by-value%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There's two different meanings of "reference," which is probably the source of confusion even with veteran developers, especially in regards to Apex. Some developers consider passing a variable's memory in to a parameter as "by reference", and literal values as "by value". We see this frequently in languages like C:
#include <stdio.h>
void multiplyByTwoRef(int *source)
// We're modifying the caller's value!
*source = *source * 2;
int multiplyByTwo(int source)
// We're modifying a local copy here.
source = source * 2;
return source;
int main()
int myVar = 5;
multiplyByTwoRef(&myVar); // Here, & means "pass memory address"; this is a reference
printf("%i", myVar);
printf("%i", multiplyByTwo(myVar)); // Here, we output 20 (10 * 2)
printf("%i", myVar); // But we output 10 here again, myVar was not modified
return 0;
In Apex, of course, this doesn't happen; we can't access memory pointers directly, so people tend to call Apex pass-by-value. However, that is simply not true in the most literal sense.
Consider the following code:
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Integer x1 = 5, x2 = x1, x3 = x1, x4 = x1;
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
If you check the debug logs, you'll notice that only 8 bytes were allocated. It's also worth noting that an Integer is 8 bytes. However, we allocated x1, x2, x3, and x4, so we should have 32 bytes of heap usage, right? As it happens, this isn't true; x2, x3, and x4 all have a reference to x1.
You can see the difference if we change the code:
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Integer x1 = 5, x2 = 5, x3 = 5, x4 = 5;
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Now, we've allocated four Integer objects in memory, although they all have the same value, they are not literally the same object.
In Apex, all variables point to an area in heap (or are null). Variables themselves are references. All the time. Apex hides this fact from developers by appearing to have pass-by-value for primitives and pass-by-reference for objects, but that's all it is, an illusion.
The only way one could consider Apex to be pass-by-value is to say that Apex always passes the memory addresses (values) of objects on the heap.
So, to answer your question, yes, if you pass in an sObject record to a method, you're passing a reference to the object on the heap. Any changes you make to the object will affect the caller's version of the object. Passing in a List, or a Map, or a custom class instance, will all affect the original object on the heap.
Note that you can't modify the parameter itself, as that would lose the reference on the heap. It won't affect the original caller's version, because you're creating a new object in memory. To compare:
public static void setFirstName(Contact record, String name)
// This WILL affect the caller's object
record.FirstName = name;
record = new Contact();
// This won't affect the caller's object
record.FirstName = name.repeat(2);
// ...
Contact record = new Contact();
setFirstName(record, 'Sally');
The important thing to remember is that primitives are immutable, and cannot be directly modified. You may as well consider these pass-by-value, even though we're really passing references. Everything else is pass-by-reference, since modifying the object in the parameter will affect the original.
Now I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect Apex does not actually pass primitive parameters in method calls as pointers but rather, as Java would, as actual values. The values are pushed on the stack. Primitives are, at their largest, double values (8 bytes). This excludes String. I would say these should be viewed as non-primitives that are actually simply immutable. The notion of Integer, Decimal etc. is almost certainly the same concept of box types, with auto boxing and unboxing around parameter passing. I accept I could be wrong since I have no access to the Apex runtime code.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
add a comment |
There's two different meanings of "reference," which is probably the source of confusion even with veteran developers, especially in regards to Apex. Some developers consider passing a variable's memory in to a parameter as "by reference", and literal values as "by value". We see this frequently in languages like C:
#include <stdio.h>
void multiplyByTwoRef(int *source)
// We're modifying the caller's value!
*source = *source * 2;
int multiplyByTwo(int source)
// We're modifying a local copy here.
source = source * 2;
return source;
int main()
int myVar = 5;
multiplyByTwoRef(&myVar); // Here, & means "pass memory address"; this is a reference
printf("%i", myVar);
printf("%i", multiplyByTwo(myVar)); // Here, we output 20 (10 * 2)
printf("%i", myVar); // But we output 10 here again, myVar was not modified
return 0;
In Apex, of course, this doesn't happen; we can't access memory pointers directly, so people tend to call Apex pass-by-value. However, that is simply not true in the most literal sense.
Consider the following code:
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Integer x1 = 5, x2 = x1, x3 = x1, x4 = x1;
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
If you check the debug logs, you'll notice that only 8 bytes were allocated. It's also worth noting that an Integer is 8 bytes. However, we allocated x1, x2, x3, and x4, so we should have 32 bytes of heap usage, right? As it happens, this isn't true; x2, x3, and x4 all have a reference to x1.
You can see the difference if we change the code:
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Integer x1 = 5, x2 = 5, x3 = 5, x4 = 5;
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Now, we've allocated four Integer objects in memory, although they all have the same value, they are not literally the same object.
In Apex, all variables point to an area in heap (or are null). Variables themselves are references. All the time. Apex hides this fact from developers by appearing to have pass-by-value for primitives and pass-by-reference for objects, but that's all it is, an illusion.
The only way one could consider Apex to be pass-by-value is to say that Apex always passes the memory addresses (values) of objects on the heap.
So, to answer your question, yes, if you pass in an sObject record to a method, you're passing a reference to the object on the heap. Any changes you make to the object will affect the caller's version of the object. Passing in a List, or a Map, or a custom class instance, will all affect the original object on the heap.
Note that you can't modify the parameter itself, as that would lose the reference on the heap. It won't affect the original caller's version, because you're creating a new object in memory. To compare:
public static void setFirstName(Contact record, String name)
// This WILL affect the caller's object
record.FirstName = name;
record = new Contact();
// This won't affect the caller's object
record.FirstName = name.repeat(2);
// ...
Contact record = new Contact();
setFirstName(record, 'Sally');
The important thing to remember is that primitives are immutable, and cannot be directly modified. You may as well consider these pass-by-value, even though we're really passing references. Everything else is pass-by-reference, since modifying the object in the parameter will affect the original.
Now I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect Apex does not actually pass primitive parameters in method calls as pointers but rather, as Java would, as actual values. The values are pushed on the stack. Primitives are, at their largest, double values (8 bytes). This excludes String. I would say these should be viewed as non-primitives that are actually simply immutable. The notion of Integer, Decimal etc. is almost certainly the same concept of box types, with auto boxing and unboxing around parameter passing. I accept I could be wrong since I have no access to the Apex runtime code.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
add a comment |
There's two different meanings of "reference," which is probably the source of confusion even with veteran developers, especially in regards to Apex. Some developers consider passing a variable's memory in to a parameter as "by reference", and literal values as "by value". We see this frequently in languages like C:
#include <stdio.h>
void multiplyByTwoRef(int *source)
// We're modifying the caller's value!
*source = *source * 2;
int multiplyByTwo(int source)
// We're modifying a local copy here.
source = source * 2;
return source;
int main()
int myVar = 5;
multiplyByTwoRef(&myVar); // Here, & means "pass memory address"; this is a reference
printf("%i", myVar);
printf("%i", multiplyByTwo(myVar)); // Here, we output 20 (10 * 2)
printf("%i", myVar); // But we output 10 here again, myVar was not modified
return 0;
In Apex, of course, this doesn't happen; we can't access memory pointers directly, so people tend to call Apex pass-by-value. However, that is simply not true in the most literal sense.
Consider the following code:
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Integer x1 = 5, x2 = x1, x3 = x1, x4 = x1;
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
If you check the debug logs, you'll notice that only 8 bytes were allocated. It's also worth noting that an Integer is 8 bytes. However, we allocated x1, x2, x3, and x4, so we should have 32 bytes of heap usage, right? As it happens, this isn't true; x2, x3, and x4 all have a reference to x1.
You can see the difference if we change the code:
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Integer x1 = 5, x2 = 5, x3 = 5, x4 = 5;
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Now, we've allocated four Integer objects in memory, although they all have the same value, they are not literally the same object.
In Apex, all variables point to an area in heap (or are null). Variables themselves are references. All the time. Apex hides this fact from developers by appearing to have pass-by-value for primitives and pass-by-reference for objects, but that's all it is, an illusion.
The only way one could consider Apex to be pass-by-value is to say that Apex always passes the memory addresses (values) of objects on the heap.
So, to answer your question, yes, if you pass in an sObject record to a method, you're passing a reference to the object on the heap. Any changes you make to the object will affect the caller's version of the object. Passing in a List, or a Map, or a custom class instance, will all affect the original object on the heap.
Note that you can't modify the parameter itself, as that would lose the reference on the heap. It won't affect the original caller's version, because you're creating a new object in memory. To compare:
public static void setFirstName(Contact record, String name)
// This WILL affect the caller's object
record.FirstName = name;
record = new Contact();
// This won't affect the caller's object
record.FirstName = name.repeat(2);
// ...
Contact record = new Contact();
setFirstName(record, 'Sally');
The important thing to remember is that primitives are immutable, and cannot be directly modified. You may as well consider these pass-by-value, even though we're really passing references. Everything else is pass-by-reference, since modifying the object in the parameter will affect the original.
There's two different meanings of "reference," which is probably the source of confusion even with veteran developers, especially in regards to Apex. Some developers consider passing a variable's memory in to a parameter as "by reference", and literal values as "by value". We see this frequently in languages like C:
#include <stdio.h>
void multiplyByTwoRef(int *source)
// We're modifying the caller's value!
*source = *source * 2;
int multiplyByTwo(int source)
// We're modifying a local copy here.
source = source * 2;
return source;
int main()
int myVar = 5;
multiplyByTwoRef(&myVar); // Here, & means "pass memory address"; this is a reference
printf("%i", myVar);
printf("%i", multiplyByTwo(myVar)); // Here, we output 20 (10 * 2)
printf("%i", myVar); // But we output 10 here again, myVar was not modified
return 0;
In Apex, of course, this doesn't happen; we can't access memory pointers directly, so people tend to call Apex pass-by-value. However, that is simply not true in the most literal sense.
Consider the following code:
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Integer x1 = 5, x2 = x1, x3 = x1, x4 = x1;
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
If you check the debug logs, you'll notice that only 8 bytes were allocated. It's also worth noting that an Integer is 8 bytes. However, we allocated x1, x2, x3, and x4, so we should have 32 bytes of heap usage, right? As it happens, this isn't true; x2, x3, and x4 all have a reference to x1.
You can see the difference if we change the code:
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Integer x1 = 5, x2 = 5, x3 = 5, x4 = 5;
System.debug(Limits.getHeapSize());
Now, we've allocated four Integer objects in memory, although they all have the same value, they are not literally the same object.
In Apex, all variables point to an area in heap (or are null). Variables themselves are references. All the time. Apex hides this fact from developers by appearing to have pass-by-value for primitives and pass-by-reference for objects, but that's all it is, an illusion.
The only way one could consider Apex to be pass-by-value is to say that Apex always passes the memory addresses (values) of objects on the heap.
So, to answer your question, yes, if you pass in an sObject record to a method, you're passing a reference to the object on the heap. Any changes you make to the object will affect the caller's version of the object. Passing in a List, or a Map, or a custom class instance, will all affect the original object on the heap.
Note that you can't modify the parameter itself, as that would lose the reference on the heap. It won't affect the original caller's version, because you're creating a new object in memory. To compare:
public static void setFirstName(Contact record, String name)
// This WILL affect the caller's object
record.FirstName = name;
record = new Contact();
// This won't affect the caller's object
record.FirstName = name.repeat(2);
// ...
Contact record = new Contact();
setFirstName(record, 'Sally');
The important thing to remember is that primitives are immutable, and cannot be directly modified. You may as well consider these pass-by-value, even though we're really passing references. Everything else is pass-by-reference, since modifying the object in the parameter will affect the original.
answered 4 hours ago
sfdcfoxsfdcfox
267k13213461
267k13213461
Now I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect Apex does not actually pass primitive parameters in method calls as pointers but rather, as Java would, as actual values. The values are pushed on the stack. Primitives are, at their largest, double values (8 bytes). This excludes String. I would say these should be viewed as non-primitives that are actually simply immutable. The notion of Integer, Decimal etc. is almost certainly the same concept of box types, with auto boxing and unboxing around parameter passing. I accept I could be wrong since I have no access to the Apex runtime code.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Now I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect Apex does not actually pass primitive parameters in method calls as pointers but rather, as Java would, as actual values. The values are pushed on the stack. Primitives are, at their largest, double values (8 bytes). This excludes String. I would say these should be viewed as non-primitives that are actually simply immutable. The notion of Integer, Decimal etc. is almost certainly the same concept of box types, with auto boxing and unboxing around parameter passing. I accept I could be wrong since I have no access to the Apex runtime code.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
Now I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect Apex does not actually pass primitive parameters in method calls as pointers but rather, as Java would, as actual values. The values are pushed on the stack. Primitives are, at their largest, double values (8 bytes). This excludes String. I would say these should be viewed as non-primitives that are actually simply immutable. The notion of Integer, Decimal etc. is almost certainly the same concept of box types, with auto boxing and unboxing around parameter passing. I accept I could be wrong since I have no access to the Apex runtime code.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
Now I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect Apex does not actually pass primitive parameters in method calls as pointers but rather, as Java would, as actual values. The values are pushed on the stack. Primitives are, at their largest, double values (8 bytes). This excludes String. I would say these should be viewed as non-primitives that are actually simply immutable. The notion of Integer, Decimal etc. is almost certainly the same concept of box types, with auto boxing and unboxing around parameter passing. I accept I could be wrong since I have no access to the Apex runtime code.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
add a comment |
When Apex code calls synchronous Apex code the non-primitive objects are passed by reference - a change to the content of a list, map, set, SObject or custom Apex object is reflected in the caller's context too.
I suggest that the "pass by value" statement in the article is referring to cases such as scheduled apex, batches etc. (asynchronous execution) where the state of the object is serialized to the database, and deserialized back into an object when that code is about to be executed. In this sense the original state of the object (such as a batch) is not impacted by the later, asynchronous execution of the processing in that object.
When you query an object from the DB into an SObject in Apex, the SObject in Apex is only populated with the fields you actually request in the query. All other fields are unset (and an attempt to directly read them will fail with an exception - you can avoid this error by getting the populated fields map and interrogating this map instead). Note, however, that you can set any fields you like in that SObject, whether or not you queried them, and update the object in the DB using that modified state.
That's simply not correct. They're not passed by value; they're actively serialized, thus creating a copy. The original value was still passed in by reference.
– sfdcfox
4 hours ago
I didn't say it was pass by value, just that the original value isn't affected. I even said they are serialized and deserialize.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
add a comment |
When Apex code calls synchronous Apex code the non-primitive objects are passed by reference - a change to the content of a list, map, set, SObject or custom Apex object is reflected in the caller's context too.
I suggest that the "pass by value" statement in the article is referring to cases such as scheduled apex, batches etc. (asynchronous execution) where the state of the object is serialized to the database, and deserialized back into an object when that code is about to be executed. In this sense the original state of the object (such as a batch) is not impacted by the later, asynchronous execution of the processing in that object.
When you query an object from the DB into an SObject in Apex, the SObject in Apex is only populated with the fields you actually request in the query. All other fields are unset (and an attempt to directly read them will fail with an exception - you can avoid this error by getting the populated fields map and interrogating this map instead). Note, however, that you can set any fields you like in that SObject, whether or not you queried them, and update the object in the DB using that modified state.
That's simply not correct. They're not passed by value; they're actively serialized, thus creating a copy. The original value was still passed in by reference.
– sfdcfox
4 hours ago
I didn't say it was pass by value, just that the original value isn't affected. I even said they are serialized and deserialize.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
add a comment |
When Apex code calls synchronous Apex code the non-primitive objects are passed by reference - a change to the content of a list, map, set, SObject or custom Apex object is reflected in the caller's context too.
I suggest that the "pass by value" statement in the article is referring to cases such as scheduled apex, batches etc. (asynchronous execution) where the state of the object is serialized to the database, and deserialized back into an object when that code is about to be executed. In this sense the original state of the object (such as a batch) is not impacted by the later, asynchronous execution of the processing in that object.
When you query an object from the DB into an SObject in Apex, the SObject in Apex is only populated with the fields you actually request in the query. All other fields are unset (and an attempt to directly read them will fail with an exception - you can avoid this error by getting the populated fields map and interrogating this map instead). Note, however, that you can set any fields you like in that SObject, whether or not you queried them, and update the object in the DB using that modified state.
When Apex code calls synchronous Apex code the non-primitive objects are passed by reference - a change to the content of a list, map, set, SObject or custom Apex object is reflected in the caller's context too.
I suggest that the "pass by value" statement in the article is referring to cases such as scheduled apex, batches etc. (asynchronous execution) where the state of the object is serialized to the database, and deserialized back into an object when that code is about to be executed. In this sense the original state of the object (such as a batch) is not impacted by the later, asynchronous execution of the processing in that object.
When you query an object from the DB into an SObject in Apex, the SObject in Apex is only populated with the fields you actually request in the query. All other fields are unset (and an attempt to directly read them will fail with an exception - you can avoid this error by getting the populated fields map and interrogating this map instead). Note, however, that you can set any fields you like in that SObject, whether or not you queried them, and update the object in the DB using that modified state.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
Phil WPhil W
1,113311
1,113311
That's simply not correct. They're not passed by value; they're actively serialized, thus creating a copy. The original value was still passed in by reference.
– sfdcfox
4 hours ago
I didn't say it was pass by value, just that the original value isn't affected. I even said they are serialized and deserialize.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
add a comment |
That's simply not correct. They're not passed by value; they're actively serialized, thus creating a copy. The original value was still passed in by reference.
– sfdcfox
4 hours ago
I didn't say it was pass by value, just that the original value isn't affected. I even said they are serialized and deserialize.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
That's simply not correct. They're not passed by value; they're actively serialized, thus creating a copy. The original value was still passed in by reference.
– sfdcfox
4 hours ago
That's simply not correct. They're not passed by value; they're actively serialized, thus creating a copy. The original value was still passed in by reference.
– sfdcfox
4 hours ago
I didn't say it was pass by value, just that the original value isn't affected. I even said they are serialized and deserialize.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
I didn't say it was pass by value, just that the original value isn't affected. I even said they are serialized and deserialize.
– Phil W
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Salesforce Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f260299%2fpass-by-reference-vs-pass-by-value%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
When you query an object from the DB into an SObject in Apex, the SObject in Apex is only populated with the fields you actually state in the query. All other fields are unset (and an attempt to directly read them will fail with an exception). Note, however, that you can set any fields you like in that SObject, whether or not you queried them, and update the object in the DB using that modified state.
– Phil W
5 hours ago
I am assuming the code you have shown is purely for illustration. If this is your production code I recommend you consider avoiding explicit ID references as these do not port between orgs.
– Phil W
5 hours ago