Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > hashCode

Reply
Thread Tools

hashCode

 
 
bob smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2012
Is it always technically correct to override the hashCode function like so:

@Override
public int hashCode() {
return 1;
}

Would it be potentially better if that was Object's implementation?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Arne Vajhøj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2012
On 8/10/2012 11:47 AM, bob smith wrote:
> Is it always technically correct to override the hashCode function like so:
>
> @Override
> public int hashCode() {
> return 1;
> }


It meets the minimum contractual obligation for that method.

But performance of anything using the hash capability (like HashMap<>)
would be very bad.

> Would it be potentially better if that was Object's implementation?


It has a different behavior that may not be valid if you override equals.

Arne


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eric Sosman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2012
On 8/10/2012 11:47 AM, bob smith wrote:
> Is it always technically correct to override the hashCode function like so:
>
> @Override
> public int hashCode() {
> return 1;
> }
>
> Would it be potentially better if that was Object's implementation?


Define "better."

--
Eric Sosman
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)d
 
Reply With Quote
 
markspace
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2012
On 8/10/2012 9:13 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/10/2012 11:47 AM, bob smith wrote:
>> Is it always technically correct to override the hashCode function
>> like so:
>>
>> @Override
>> public int hashCode() {
>> return 1;
>> }

>
> It meets the minimum contractual obligation for that method.
>
> But performance of anything using the hash capability (like HashMap<>)
> would be very bad.
>
>> Would it be potentially better if that was Object's implementation?

>
> It has a different behavior that may not be valid if you override equals.



I think at this point we are doing Bob's homework for him.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajhøj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2012
On 8/10/2012 1:13 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 8/10/2012 9:13 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/10/2012 11:47 AM, bob smith wrote:
>>> Is it always technically correct to override the hashCode function
>>> like so:
>>>
>>> @Override
>>> public int hashCode() {
>>> return 1;
>>> }

>>
>> It meets the minimum contractual obligation for that method.
>>
>> But performance of anything using the hash capability (like HashMap<>)
>> would be very bad.
>>
>>> Would it be potentially better if that was Object's implementation?

>>
>> It has a different behavior that may not be valid if you override equals.

>
> I think at this point we are doing Bob's homework for him.


Could be.

But I think the question whether returning a constant from
hashCode is a valid Java question for understanding the
contract for that method.

And I am pretty sure that I have seen other similar
examples (just with 42 as constant).

Arne


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roedy Green
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2012
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:47:12 -0700 (PDT), bob smith
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :

> @Override
> public int hashCode() {
> return 1;
> }


that's about the worst possible hashCode function.

See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/hashcode.html for tips on how to write
good ones.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,
but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
~ Max Planck 1858-04-23 1947-10-04


 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2012
Roedy Green wrote:
> bob smith wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
> who said :
>
>> @Override
> > public int hashCode() {
> > return 1;
> > }

>
> that's about the worst possible hashCode function.


Normally that's correct, but it's conceivable that one might do it for
some hackish reason. In most situations where one might do such
an override as this, one would do better not to override hashCode().

> See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/hashcode.html for tips on how to write
> good ones.


The default of assembling it via the mix-in of attribute hash codes
using the Knuth constants is usually good enough.

h(object) = Sum(i ∈ 0.. n-1) of ( attribute[i] * pow(31, n - 1 - i) );

or

public static int calculateHash(Foo arg) {
int h = 0;

for ( each attribute of Foo that contributes to 'equals()' )
{
h = 31 * h + attribute.hashCode();
}
return h;
}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_hashCode()
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_hashCode()#Java

--
Lew
 
Reply With Quote
 
bob smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2012
On Friday, August 10, 2012 11:34:28 AM UTC-5, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 8/10/2012 11:47 AM, bob smith wrote:
>
> > Is it always technically correct to override the hashCode function like so:

>
> >

>
> > @Override

>
> > public int hashCode() {

>
> > return 1;

>
> > }

>
> >

>
> > Would it be potentially better if that was Object's implementation?

>
>
>
> Define "better."
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eric Sosman
>
> (E-Mail Removed)d


Better in the sense that you would never HAVE to override hashCode.

Now, there are cases where you HAVE to override it, or your code is very broken.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2012
bob smith wrote:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
>> bob smith wrote:
>>> Is it always technically correct to override the hashCode function like so:


It complies with the contract for 'hashCode()'. Is that all it takes to be correct?

>>> Would it be potentially better if that was Object's implementation?


Would what be better if what were Object's implementation of what?

>> Define "better."


> Better in the sense that you would never HAVE to override hashCode.
>
> Now, there are cases where you HAVE to override it, or your code is very broken.


No.

No matter what 'Object''s 'hashCode()' implementation were, it would need to
be overridden when you want value equality instead of object identity for
'equals()'.

See Joshua Bloch's seminal work /Effective Java/, which has items that pertain to this.

Bottom line: 'hashCode()', 'equals()', and when present, 'compareTo()' must be consistent.

'toString()' should be consistent with those.

As long as 'hashCode()' fulfills the contract, your code will work - functionally. But a bad
'hashCode()' could and likely will noticeably affect performance. There is more to correctness
than mere functional conformance.

--
Lew
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajhøj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2012
On 8/10/2012 3:17 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:47:12 -0700 (PDT), bob smith
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
> who said :
>
>> @Override
>> public int hashCode() {
>> return 1;
>> }

>
> that's about the worst possible hashCode function.


Yes, but the posted asked "Is it always technically correct to ..."
not whether is was "best possible".

Arne


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hashcode of primitive types Dimitri Pissarenko Java 5 01-29-2004 11:05 PM
Improving hashCode() to match equals() Marco Java 10 01-17-2004 09:55 PM
Designing hashCode() methods kelvSYC Java 1 12-24-2003 02:56 AM
equals and hashCode Gregory A. Swarthout Java 2 12-20-2003 12:34 AM
hashCode for byte[] Roedy Green Java 1 08-22-2003 02:08 AM



Advertisments