为了在HashMap, Hashtable等集合中使用我们自己的类对象作为键。，我们应该通过了解集合的内部工作来重写这两个方法(hashCode()和equals())。否则，它会导致我们意想不到的错误结果。

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。

我正在研究解释“如果你只覆盖hashCode，那么当你调用myMap.put(first,someValue)时，它首先接受，计算它的hashCode并将其存储在给定的桶中。然后，当你调用myMap.put(first,someOtherValue)时，它应该根据Map文档将first替换为second，因为它们是相等的(根据我们的定义)。”：

我认为第二次添加myMap时应该是第二个对象比如myMap。put(second,someOtherValue)

如果重写equals()而不是hashcode()，则不会发现任何问题，除非您或其他人在HashSet等散列集合中使用该类类型。 在我之前的人已经清楚地解释了很多次文献理论，我只是在这里提供一个非常简单的例子。

考虑一个类，它的equals()需要表示自定义的东西:-

    public class Rishav {

        private String rshv;

        public Rishav(String rshv) {
            this.rshv = rshv;
        }

        /**
        * @return the rshv
        */
        public String getRshv() {
            return rshv;
        }

        /**
        * @param rshv the rshv to set
        */
        public void setRshv(String rshv) {
            this.rshv = rshv;
        }

        @Override
        public boolean equals(Object obj) {
            if (obj instanceof Rishav) {
                obj = (Rishav) obj;
                if (this.rshv.equals(((Rishav) obj).getRshv())) {
                    return true;
                } else {
                    return false;
                }
            } else {
                return false;
            }
        }

        @Override
        public int hashCode() {
            return rshv.hashCode();
        }

    }

现在考虑这个主类:-

    import java.util.HashSet;
    import java.util.Set;

    public class TestRishav {

        public static void main(String[] args) {
            Rishav rA = new Rishav("rishav");
            Rishav rB = new Rishav("rishav");
            System.out.println(rA.equals(rB));
            System.out.println("-----------------------------------");

            Set<Rishav> hashed = new HashSet<>();
            hashed.add(rA);
            System.out.println(hashed.contains(rB));
            System.out.println("-----------------------------------");

            hashed.add(rB);
            System.out.println(hashed.size());
        }

    }

这将产生以下输出:-

    true
    -----------------------------------
    true
    -----------------------------------
    1

我对结果很满意。但是如果我没有覆盖hashCode()，它将导致噩梦，因为具有相同成员内容的Rishav对象将不再被视为唯一的hashCode将是不同的，因为由默认行为生成，这里将是输出:-

    true
    -----------------------------------
    false
    -----------------------------------
    2

它在使用值对象时很有用。以下摘自Portland Pattern Repository:

Examples of value objects are things like numbers, dates, monies and strings. Usually, they are small objects which are used quite widely. Their identity is based on their state rather than on their object identity. This way, you can have multiple copies of the same conceptual value object. So I can have multiple copies of an object that represents the date 16 Jan 1998. Any of these copies will be equal to each other. For a small object such as this, it is often easier to create new ones and move them around rather than rely on a single object to represent the date. A value object should always override .equals() in Java (or = in Smalltalk). (Remember to override .hashCode() as well.)

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:-(