Pointers vs. values in parameters and return values

tl;dr:

Methods using receiver pointers are common; the rule of thumb for receivers is, "If in doubt, use a pointer."

Slices, maps, channels, strings, function values, and interface values are implemented with pointers internally, and a pointer to them is often redundant.

Elsewhere, use pointers for big structs or structs you'll have to change, and otherwise pass values, because getting things changed by surprise via a pointer is confusing.

One case where you should often use a pointer:

Receivers are pointers more often than other arguments. It's not unusual for methods to modify the thing they're called on, or for named types to be large structs, so the guidance is to default to pointers except in rare cases. Jeff Hodges' copyfighter tool automatically searches for non-tiny receivers passed by value.

Jeff Hodges' copyfighter tool automatically searches for non-tiny receivers passed by value.

Some situations where you don't need pointers:

Code review guidelines suggest passing small structs like type Point struct { latitude, longitude float64 }, and maybe even things a bit bigger, as values, unless the function you're calling needs to be able to modify them in place. Value semantics avoid aliasing situations where an assignment over here changes a value over there by surprise. Passing small structs by value can be more efficient by avoiding cache misses or heap allocations. In any case, when pointers and values perform similarly, the Go-y approach is to choose whatever provides the more natural semantics rather than squeeze out every last bit of speed. So, Go Wiki's code review comments page suggests passing by value when structs are small and likely to stay that way. If the "large" cutoff seems vague, it is; arguably many structs are in a range where either a pointer or a value is OK. As a lower bound, the code review comments suggest slices (three machine words) are reasonable to use as value receivers. As something nearer an upper bound, bytes.Replace takes 10 words' worth of args (three slices and an int). You can find situations where copying even large structs turns out a performance win, but the rule of thumb is not to.

Value semantics avoid aliasing situations where an assignment over here changes a value over there by surprise.

Passing small structs by value can be more efficient by avoiding cache misses or heap allocations. In any case, when pointers and values perform similarly, the Go-y approach is to choose whatever provides the more natural semantics rather than squeeze out every last bit of speed.

So, Go Wiki's code review comments page suggests passing by value when structs are small and likely to stay that way.

If the "large" cutoff seems vague, it is; arguably many structs are in a range where either a pointer or a value is OK. As a lower bound, the code review comments suggest slices (three machine words) are reasonable to use as value receivers. As something nearer an upper bound, bytes.Replace takes 10 words' worth of args (three slices and an int). You can find situations where copying even large structs turns out a performance win, but the rule of thumb is not to.

For slices, you don't need to pass a pointer to change elements of the array. io.Reader.Read(p []byte) changes the bytes of p, for instance. It's arguably a special case of "treat little structs like values," since internally you're passing around a little structure called a slice header (see Russ Cox (rsc)'s explanation). Similarly, you don't need a pointer to modify a map or communicate on a channel.

For slices you'll reslice (change the start/length/capacity of), built-in functions like append accept a slice value and return a new one. I'd imitate that; it avoids aliasing, returning a new slice helps call attention to the fact that a new array might be allocated, and it's familiar to callers. It's not always practical follow that pattern. Some tools like database interfaces or serializers need to append to a slice whose type isn't known at compile time. They sometimes accept a pointer to a slice in an interface{} parameter.

It's not always practical follow that pattern. Some tools like database interfaces or serializers need to append to a slice whose type isn't known at compile time. They sometimes accept a pointer to a slice in an interface{} parameter.

Maps, channels, strings, and function and interface values, like slices, are internally references or structures that contain references already, so if you're just trying to avoid getting the underlying data copied, you don't need to pass pointers to them. (rsc wrote a separate post on how interface values are stored). You still may need to pass pointers in the rarer case that you want to modify the caller's struct: flag.StringVar takes a *string for that reason, for example.

You still may need to pass pointers in the rarer case that you want to modify the caller's struct: flag.StringVar takes a *string for that reason, for example.

Where you use pointers:

Consider whether your function should be a method on whichever struct you need a pointer to. People expect a lot of methods on x to modify x, so making the modified struct the receiver may help to minimize surprise. There are guidelines on when receivers should be pointers.

Functions that have effects on their non-receiver params should make that clear in the godoc, or better yet, the godoc and the name (like reader.WriteTo(writer)).

You mention accepting a pointer to avoid allocations by allowing reuse; changing APIs for the sake of memory reuse is an optimization I'd delay until it's clear the allocations have a nontrivial cost, and then I'd look for a way that doesn't force the trickier API on all users: For avoiding allocations, Go's escape analysis is your friend. You can sometimes help it avoid heap allocations by making types that can be initialized with a trivial constructor, a plain literal, or a useful zero value like bytes.Buffer. Consider a Reset() method to put an object back in a blank state, like some stdlib types offer. Users who don't care or can't save an allocation don't have to call it. Consider writing modify-in-place methods and create-from-scratch functions as matching pairs, for convenience: existingUser.LoadFromJSON(json []byte) error could be wrapped by NewUserFromJSON(json []byte) (*User, error). Again, it pushes the choice between laziness and pinching allocations to the individual caller. Callers seeking to recycle memory can let sync.Pool handle some details. If a particular allocation creates a lot of memory pressure, you're confident you know when the alloc is no longer used, and you don't have a better optimization available, sync.Pool can help. (CloudFlare published a useful (pre-sync.Pool) blog post about recycling.)

For avoiding allocations, Go's escape analysis is your friend. You can sometimes help it avoid heap allocations by making types that can be initialized with a trivial constructor, a plain literal, or a useful zero value like bytes.Buffer.

Consider a Reset() method to put an object back in a blank state, like some stdlib types offer. Users who don't care or can't save an allocation don't have to call it.

Consider writing modify-in-place methods and create-from-scratch functions as matching pairs, for convenience: existingUser.LoadFromJSON(json []byte) error could be wrapped by NewUserFromJSON(json []byte) (*User, error). Again, it pushes the choice between laziness and pinching allocations to the individual caller.

Callers seeking to recycle memory can let sync.Pool handle some details. If a particular allocation creates a lot of memory pressure, you're confident you know when the alloc is no longer used, and you don't have a better optimization available, sync.Pool can help. (CloudFlare published a useful (pre-sync.Pool) blog post about recycling.)

Finally, on whether your slices should be of pointers: slices of values can be useful, and save you allocations and cache misses. There can be blockers:

The API to create your items might force pointers on you, e.g. you have to call NewFoo() *Foo rather than let Go initialize with the zero value.

The desired lifetimes of the items might not all be the same. The whole slice is freed at once; if 99% of the items are no longer useful but you have pointers to the other 1%, all of the array remains allocated.

Moving values around might cause you performance or correctness problems, making pointers more attractive. Notably, append copies items when it grows the underlying array. Pointers you got before the append point to the wrong place after, copying can be slower for huge structs, and for e.g. sync.Mutex copying isn't allowed. Insert/delete in the middle and sorting similarly move items around.

Broadly, value slices can make sense if either you get all of your items in place up front and don't move them (e.g., no more appends after initial setup), or if you do keep moving them around but you're sure that's OK (no/careful use of pointers to items, items are small enough to copy efficiently, etc.). Sometimes you have to think about or measure the specifics of your situation, but that's a rough guide.

---

If you can (e.g. a non-shared resource that does not need to be passed as reference), use a value. By the following reasons:

Your code will be nicer and more readable, avoiding pointer operators and null checks. Your code will be safer against Null Pointer panics. Your code will be often faster: yes, faster! Why?

Reason 1: you will allocate less items in the heap. Allocating/deallocating from stack is immediate, but allocating/deallocating on Heap may be very expensive (allocation time + garbage collection). You can see some basic numbers here: http://www.macias.info/entry/201802102230_go_values_vs_references.md

Reason 2: especially if you store returned values in slices, your memory objects will be more compacted in memory: looping a slice where all the items are contiguous is much faster than iterating a slice where all the items are pointers to other parts of the memory. Not for the indirection step but for the increase of cache misses.

Myth breaker: a typical x86 cache line are 64 bytes. Most structs are smaller than that. The time of copying a cache line in memory is similar to copying a pointer.

Only if a critical part of your code is slow I would try some micro-optimization and check if using pointers improves somewhat the speed, at the cost of less readability and mantainability.

---

Three main reasons when you would want to use method receivers as pointers:

"First, and most important, does the method need to modify the receiver? If it does, the receiver must be a pointer." "Second is the consideration of efficiency. If the receiver is large, a big struct for instance, it will be much cheaper to use a pointer receiver." "Next is consistency. If some of the methods of the type must have pointer receivers, the rest should too, so the method set is consistent regardless of how the type is used"

Reference : https://golang.org/doc/faq#methods_on_values_or_pointers

Edit : Another important thing is to know the actual "type" that you are sending to function. The type can either be a 'value type' or 'reference type'.

Even as slices and maps acts as references, we might want to pass them as pointers in scenarios like changing the length of the slice in the function.

---

A case where you generally need to return a pointer is when constructing an instance of some stateful or shareable resource. This is often done by functions prefixed with New.

Because they represent a specific instance of something and they may need to coordinate some activity, it doesn't make a lot of sense to generate duplicated/copied structures representing the same resource -- so the returned pointer acts as the handle to the resource itself.

Some examples:

func NewTLSServer(handler http.Handler) *Server -- instantiate a web server for testing

func Open(name string) (*File, error) -- return a file access handle

In other cases, pointers are returned just because the structure may be too large to copy by default:

func NewRGBA(r Rectangle) *RGBA -- allocate an image in memory

Alternatively, returning pointers directly could be avoided by instead returning a copy of a structure that contains the pointer internally, but maybe this isn't considered idiomatic:

No such examples found in the standard libraries...

Related question: Embedding in Go with pointer or with value

---

Regarding to struct vs. pointer return value, I got confused after reading many highly stared open source projects on github, as there are many examples for both cases, util I found this amazing article: https://www.ardanlabs.com/blog/2014/12/using-pointers-in-go.html

"In general, share struct type values with a pointer unless the struct type has been implemented to behave like a primitive data value.

If you are still not sure, this is another way to think about. Think of every struct as having a nature. If the nature of the struct is something that should not be changed, like a time, a color or a coordinate, then implement the struct as a primitive data value. If the nature of the struct is something that can be changed, even if it never is in your program, it is not a primitive data value and should be implemented to be shared with a pointer. Don’t create structs that have a duality of nature."

Completedly convinced.

---