class A {
    int i;
    // Hashing Algorithm
    if even number return 0 else return 1
    // Equals Algorithm,
    if i = this.i return true else false
}

put('key'，'value')将使用hashCode()计算哈希值来确定 桶，并使用equals()方法查找该值是否已经 出现在桶里。如果不是，它将被添加，否则它将被替换为当前值 get('key')将使用hashCode()首先找到条目(桶) equals()来查找Entry中的值

如果两者都被覆盖，

地图<A>

Map.Entry 1 --> 1,3,5,...
Map.Entry 2 --> 2,4,6,...

If =没有被覆盖

地图<A>

Map.Entry 1 --> 1,3,5,...,1,3,5,... // Duplicate values as equals not overridden
Map.Entry 2 --> 2,4,6,...,2,4,..

如果hashCode没有被覆盖

地图<A>

Map.Entry 1 --> 1
Map.Entry 2 --> 2
Map.Entry 3 --> 3
Map.Entry 4 --> 1
Map.Entry 5 --> 2
Map.Entry 6 --> 3 // Same values are Stored in different hasCodes violates Contract 1
So on...

HashCode等价契约

根据equal方法，两个相等的键应该生成相同的hashCode 生成相同hashCode的两个key不需要相等(在上面的例子中，所有偶数生成相同的hashCode)

class A {
    int i;
    // Hashing Algorithm
    if even number return 0 else return 1
    // Equals Algorithm,
    if i = this.i return true else false
}

put('key'，'value')将使用hashCode()计算哈希值来确定 桶，并使用equals()方法查找该值是否已经 出现在桶里。如果不是，它将被添加，否则它将被替换为当前值 get('key')将使用hashCode()首先找到条目(桶) equals()来查找Entry中的值

如果两者都被覆盖，

地图<A>

Map.Entry 1 --> 1,3,5,...
Map.Entry 2 --> 2,4,6,...

If =没有被覆盖

地图<A>

Map.Entry 1 --> 1,3,5,...,1,3,5,... // Duplicate values as equals not overridden
Map.Entry 2 --> 2,4,6,...,2,4,..

如果hashCode没有被覆盖

地图<A>

Map.Entry 1 --> 1
Map.Entry 2 --> 2
Map.Entry 3 --> 3
Map.Entry 4 --> 1
Map.Entry 5 --> 2
Map.Entry 6 --> 3 // Same values are Stored in different hasCodes violates Contract 1
So on...

HashCode等价契约

根据equal方法，两个相等的键应该生成相同的hashCode 生成相同hashCode的两个key不需要相等(在上面的例子中，所有偶数生成相同的hashCode)

假设你有一个类(A)，它聚合了另外两个类(B) (C)，你需要在哈希表中存储类(A)的实例。默认实现只允许区分实例，但不允许通过(B)和(C)。因此A的两个实例可以相等，但默认不允许您以正确的方式比较它们。

The methods equals and hashcode are defined in the object class. By default if the equals method returns true, then the system will go further and check the value of the hash code. If the hash code of the 2 objects is also same only then the objects will be considered as same. So if you override only equals method, then even though the overridden equals method indicates 2 objects to be equal , the system defined hashcode may not indicate that the 2 objects are equal. So we need to override hash code as well.

在这个回答中没有提到测试equals/hashcode契约。

我发现EqualsVerifier库非常有用和全面。它也很容易使用。

另外，从头构建equals()和hashCode()方法涉及大量样板代码。Apache Commons Lang库提供了EqualsBuilder和HashCodeBuilder类。这些类极大地简化了复杂类的equals()和hashCode()方法的实现。

顺便说一句，值得考虑重写toString()方法以帮助调试。Apache Commons Lang库提供了ToStringBuilder类来帮助实现这一点。

Bah -“你必须在每个重写equals()的类中重写hashCode()。”

[出自Joshua Bloch的《Effective Java》?］

Isn't this the wrong way round? Overriding hashCode likely implies you're writing a hash-key class, but overriding equals certainly does not. There are many classes that are not used as hash-keys, but do want a logical-equality-testing method for some other reason. If you choose "equals" for it, you may then be mandated to write a hashCode implementation by overzealous application of this rule. All that achieves is adding untested code in the codebase, an evil waiting to trip someone up in the future. Also writing code you don't need is anti-agile. It's just wrong (and an ide generated one will probably be incompatible with your hand-crafted equals).

他们肯定应该在被写来用作键的对象上强制设置一个接口吗?无论如何，Object永远不应该提供默认的hashCode()和equals() imho。它可能鼓励了许多破碎的散列集合。

但无论如何，我认为“规则”是前后颠倒的。与此同时，我将继续避免使用“等号”进行相等性测试方法:-(