当您希望将自定义对象作为Map中的键存储和检索时，您应该始终重写自定义对象中的equals和hashCode。 例如:

Person p1 = new Person("A",23);
Person p2 = new Person("A",23);
HashMap map = new HashMap();
map.put(p1,"value 1");
map.put(p2,"value 2");

这里p1和p2只被认为是一个对象，映射大小也只有1，因为它们相等。

为了帮助你检查重复的对象，我们需要一个自定义的等号和hashCode。

Since hashcode always returns a number its always fast to retrieve an object using a number rather than an alphabetic key. How will it do? Assume we created a new object by passing some value which is already available in some other object. Now the new object will return the same hash value as of another object because the value passed is same. Once the same hash value is returned, JVM will go to the same memory address every time and if in case there are more than one objects present for the same hash value it will use equals() method to identify the correct object.

因为如果你不重写它们，你将使用Object中的默认实现。

考虑到实例相等和hascode值通常需要了解组成对象的内容，它们通常需要在类中重新定义，以具有任何有形的意义。

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。

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:-(

简单地说，Object中的equals-方法检查引用是否相等，当属性相等时，类的两个实例在语义上仍然相等。例如，当将对象放入使用等号和hashcode(如HashMap和Set)的容器中时，这很重要。假设我们有这样一个类:

public class Foo {
    String id;
    String whatevs;

    Foo(String id, String whatevs) {
        this.id = id;
        this.whatevs = whatevs;
    }
}

我们创建了两个具有相同id的实例:

Foo a = new Foo("id", "something");
Foo b = new Foo("id", "something else");

如果不重写等号，我们将得到:

A.equals (b)为假，因为它们是两个不同的实例 a.equals(a)为真，因为它是同一个实例 b.equals(b)为真，因为它是同一个实例

正确吗?也许吧，如果这是你想要的。但假设我们希望具有相同id的对象是相同的对象，不管它是否是两个不同的实例。我们重写等号(和hashcode):

public class Foo {
    String id;
    String whatevs;

    Foo(String id, String whatevs) {
        this.id = id;
        this.whatevs = whatevs;
    }

    @Override
    public boolean equals(Object other) {
        if (other instanceof Foo) {
            return ((Foo)other).id.equals(this.id);   
        }
    }

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

至于实现equals和hashcode，我建议使用Guava的helper方法