Best implementation of Java Queue?

I am working (in Java) on a recursive image processing algorithm that recursively traverses the pixels of the image, outwards from a center point.

Unfortunately, that causes a Stack Overflow. So I have decided to switch to a Queue-based algorithm.

Now, this is all fine and dandy- but considering the fact that its queue will be analyzing THOUSANDS of pixels in a very short amount of time, while constantly popping and pushing, WITHOUT maintaining a predictable state (It could be anywhere between length 100, and 20000), the queue implementation needs to have significantly fast popping and pushing abilities.

A linked list seems attractive due to its ability to push elements onto itself without rearranging anything else in the list, but in order for it to be fast enough, it would need easy access to both its head, AND its tail (or second-to-last node if it were not doubly-linked). Sadly, I cannot find any information related to the underlying implementation of linked lists in Java, so it's hard to say if a linked list is really the way to go...

This brings me to my question. What would be the best implementation of the Queue interface in Java for what I intend to do? (I do not wish to edit or even access anything other than the head and tail of the queue -- I do not wish to do any sort of rearranging, or anything. On the flip side, I DO intend to do a lot of pushing and popping, and the queue will be changing size quite a bit, so preallocating would be inefficient)

Use:

Queue<Object> queue = new LinkedList<>();

You can use .offer(E e) to append an element to the end of the queue and .poll() to dequeue and retrieve the head (first element) of the queue.

Java defined the interface Queue, the LinkedList provided an implementation.

It also maintains references to the Head and Tail elements, which you can get by .getFirst() and .getLast() respectively.

credit to @Snicolas for suggesting queue interface

If you use LinkedList be careful. If you use it like this:

LinkedList<String> queue = new LinkedList<String>();

then you can violate queue definition, because it is possible to remove other elements than first (there are such methods in LinkedList).

But if you use it like this:

Queue<String> queue = new LinkedList<String>();

it should be ok,as this is heads-up to users that insertions should occur only at the back and deletions only at the front.

You can overcome defective implementation of the Queue interface by extending the LinkedList class to a PureQueue class that throws UnsupportedOperationException of any of the offending methods. Or you can take approach with aggreagation by creating PureQueue with only one field which is type LinkedList object, list, and the only methods will be a default constructor, a copy constructor, isEmpty(), size(), add(E element), remove(), and element(). All those methods should be one-liners, as for example:

/**
* Retrieves and removes the head of this queue.
* The worstTime(n) is constant and averageTime(n) is constant.
*
* @return the head of this queue.
* @throws NoSuchElementException if this queue is empty.
*/
public E remove()
{
    return list.removeFirst();
} // method remove()

Check out the Deque interface, which provides for insertions/removals at both ends. LinkedList implements that interface (as mentioned above), but for your use, an ArrayDeque may be better -- you won't incur the cost of constant object allocations for each node. Then again, it may not matter which implementation you use.

Normal polymoprhism goodness comes to play: the beauty of writing against the Deque interface, rather than any specific implementation of it, is that you can very easily switch implementations to test which one performs best. Just change the line with new in it, and the rest of the code stays the same.

It's better to use ArrayDeque instead of LinkedList when implementing Stack and Queue in Java. ArrayDeque is likely to be faster than Stack interface (while Stack is thread-safe) when used as a stack, and faster than LinkedList when used as a queue. Have a look at this link Use ArrayDeque instead of LinkedList or Stack.

If you know the upper bound of possible quantity of items in the queue, circular buffer is faster than LinkedList, as LinkedList creates an object (link) for each item in the queue.