Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #17704

Re: hashCode

From "Eric Sosman" <eric.sosman@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this>
Subject Re: hashCode
Message-ID <50269FD1.56652.calajapr@time.synchro.net> (permalink)
Newsgroups comp.lang.java.programmer
References <50269FCE.56638.calajapr@time.synchro.net>
Date 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
Organization tds.net

Show all headers | View raw

  To: bob smith
From: Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid>

On 8/10/2012 6:22 PM, bob smith wrote: [... many blank lines removed for 
legibility's sake ...]
> 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."
>
> 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.

     I cannot think of a case where you HAVE to override hashCode(),
except as a consequence of other choices that you didn't HAVE to make.  You 
don't HAVE to invent classes where distinct instances are considered equal, and 
even if you do you don't HAVE to put those instances in HashMaps or HashSets or 
whatever.

     But that's a bit specious: All it says is that you don't HAVE
to override hashCode() because you don't HAVE to use things that call it.  It's 
like "You don't HAVE to pay taxes, because you don't HAVE to live outside 
prison."  So, let's take it as a given that you will often need to write 
classes that override equals() and hashCode() -- I imagine you understand that 
they go together.

     Okay: Then returning a constant 1 (or 42 or 0 or whatever)
would in fact satisfy the letter of the law regarding hashCode(): Whenever 
x.equals(y) is true, x.hashCode() == y.hashCode().  In your example this would 
be trivially true because x,y,z,... all have the same hashCode() value, whether 
they're equal or not -- You have lived up to the letter of the law.

     Of course, such a hashCode() would make all those hash-based
containers pretty much useless: They would work in the sense that they would 
get the Right Answer, but they'd be abominably slow, with expected performance 
of O(N) instead of O(1).  See
<http://www.cs.rice.edu/~scrosby/hash/CrosbyWallach_UsenixSec2003/>
for a survey of some denial-of-service attacks that work by driving hash tables 
from O(1) to O(N), resulting in catastrophic failure of the attacked system.

     In other words, the letter of the law on hashCode() is a bare
minimum that guarantees correct functioning, but it is not enough to guarantee 
usability.  Why isn't the law more specific?  Because nobody knows how to write 
"hashCode() must be correct *and* usable" in terms that would cover all the 
classes all the Java programmers have dreamed up and will dream up.  Your 
hashCode() meets the bare minimum requirement, but is not "usable."  The actual 
hashCode() provided by Object also meets the bare minimum requirement, and *is* 
usable as it stands, until (and unless; you don't HAVE to) you choose to 
implement other equals() semantics, and a hashCode() to match them.


--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

hashCode "bob smith" <bob.smith@1:261/38.remove-t9h-this> - 2012-08-10 18:39 +0000
  Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-t9h-this> - 2012-08-10 18:39 +0000
    Re: hashCode "markspace" <markspace@1:261/38.remove-t9h-this> - 2012-08-10 18:39 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-t9h-this> - 2012-08-10 18:39 +0000
        Re: hashCode "rossum" <rossum@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
  Re: hashCode "Eric Sosman" <eric.sosman@1:261/38.remove-t9h-this> - 2012-08-10 18:39 +0000
    Re: hashCode "bob smith" <bob.smith@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
          Re: hashCode "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
            Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <������
høj@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
              Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <������
høj@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
                Re: hashCode "Eric Sosman" <eric.sosman@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
                Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <������
høj@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Eric Sosman" <eric.sosman@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
          Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <������
høj@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Robert Klemme" <robert.klemme@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
          Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-nlb-this> - 2012-08-13 18:36 +0000
            Re: hashCode "Robert Klemme" <robert.klemme@1:261/38.remove-nlb-this> - 2012-08-13 18:36 +0000
              Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-fzq-this> - 2012-08-20 18:58 +0000
              Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-fzq-this> - 2012-08-20 18:58 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Patricia Shanahan" <patricia.shanahan@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Joshua Cranmer" <joshua.cranmer@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Patricia Shanahan" <patricia.shanahan@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
          Re: hashCode "Eric Sosman" <eric.sosman@1:261/38.remove-6fd-this> - 2012-08-12 20:00 +0000
            Re: hashCode "Patricia Shanahan" <patricia.shanahan@1:261/38.remove-6fd-this> - 2012-08-12 20:00 +0000
          Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <������
høj@1:261/38.remove-nlb-this> - 2012-08-13 18:36 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Jan Burse" <jan.burse@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
  Re: hashCode "Roedy Green" <roedy.green@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
    Re: hashCode "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Roedy Green" <roedy.green@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Joerg Meier" <joerg.meier@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
          Re: hashCode "Mike Winter" <mike.winter@1:261/38.remove-ya-this> - 2012-08-11 19:19 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Peter Duniho" <peter.duniho@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Jan Burse" <jan.burse@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
      Re: hashCode "rossum" <rossum@1:261/38.remove-ya-this> - 2012-08-11 19:19 +0000
    Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Eric Sosman" <eric.sosman@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
  Re: hashCode "Jan Burse" <jan.burse@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
    Re: hashCode "Jan Burse" <jan.burse@1:261/38.remove-pjg-this> - 2012-08-11 18:17 +0000
    Re: hashCode "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <������
høj@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
    Re: hashCode "Jan Burse" <jan.burse@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Jan Burse" <jan.burse@1:261/38.remove-m2z-this> - 2012-08-12 18:58 +0000
      Re: hashCode "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-6fd-this> - 2012-08-12 20:00 +0000
        Re: hashCode "Arne Vajhøj" <������
høj@1:261/38.remove-nlb-this> - 2012-08-13 18:36 +0000

csiph-web