如果您没有插入足够多的元素导致频繁重散列(或冲突，如果您的HashSet不能调整大小)，那么HashSet当然可以为您提供常量时间访问的好处。但是对于有大量增长或收缩的集合，使用Treesets实际上可能会获得更好的性能，这取决于实现。

如果我没记错的话，平摊时间可以接近于一个功能性红黑树的O(1)。冈崎的书会有比我更好的解释。(或参阅他的出版物列表)

基于@shevchyk在地图上可爱的视觉回答，以下是我的看法:

╔══════════════╦═════════════════════╦═══════════════════╦═════════════════════╗
║   Property   ║       HashSet       ║      TreeSet      ║     LinkedHashSet   ║
╠══════════════╬═════════════════════╬═══════════════════╬═════════════════════╣
║              ║  no guarantee order ║ sorted according  ║                     ║
║   Order      ║ will remain constant║ to the natural    ║    insertion-order  ║
║              ║      over time      ║    ordering       ║                     ║
╠══════════════╬═════════════════════╬═══════════════════╬═════════════════════╣
║ Add/remove   ║        O(1)         ║     O(log(n))     ║        O(1)         ║
╠══════════════╬═════════════════════╬═══════════════════╬═════════════════════╣
║              ║                     ║   NavigableSet    ║                     ║
║  Interfaces  ║         Set         ║       Set         ║         Set         ║
║              ║                     ║    SortedSet      ║                     ║
╠══════════════╬═════════════════════╬═══════════════════╬═════════════════════╣
║              ║                     ║    not allowed    ║                     ║
║  Null values ║       allowed       ║ 1st element only  ║      allowed        ║
║              ║                     ║     in Java 7     ║                     ║
╠══════════════╬═════════════════════╩═══════════════════╩═════════════════════╣
║              ║   Fail-fast behavior of an iterator cannot be guaranteed      ║
║   Fail-fast  ║ impossible to make any hard guarantees in the presence of     ║
║   behavior   ║           unsynchronized concurrent modification              ║
╠══════════════╬═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║      Is      ║                                                               ║
║ synchronized ║              implementation is not synchronized               ║
╚══════════════╩═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

即使在11年后，也没有人想到提到一个非常重要的区别。

你认为如果HashSet等于TreeSet，那么反过来也成立吗?看看这段代码:

TreeSet<String> treeSet = new TreeSet<>(String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER);
HashSet<String> hashSet = new HashSet<>();
treeSet.add("a");
hashSet.add("A");
System.out.println(hashSet.equals(treeSet));
System.out.println(treeSet.equals(hashSet));

尝试猜测输出，然后徘徊在代码片段下面，看看真正的输出是什么。准备好了吗?给你:

假 真正的

没错，如果比较器与等号不一致，它们就不具有等价关系。原因是TreeSet使用比较器来确定等价性，而HashSet使用等号。在内部，它们使用HashMap和TreeMap，所以你应该预料到上述map也会有这种行为。

最初的回答

如果您没有插入足够多的元素导致频繁重散列(或冲突，如果您的HashSet不能调整大小)，那么HashSet当然可以为您提供常量时间访问的好处。但是对于有大量增长或收缩的集合，使用Treesets实际上可能会获得更好的性能，这取决于实现。

如果我没记错的话，平摊时间可以接近于一个功能性红黑树的O(1)。冈崎的书会有比我更好的解释。(或参阅他的出版物列表)

1.HashSet允许空对象。

2.树集不允许空对象。如果你试图添加空值，它将抛出一个NullPointerException。

3.HashSet比TreeSet快得多。

e.g.

 TreeSet<String> ts = new TreeSet<String>();
 ts.add(null); // throws NullPointerException

 HashSet<String> hs = new HashSet<String>();
 hs.add(null); // runs fine

A lot of answers have been given, based on technical considerations, especially around performance. According to me, choice between TreeSet and HashSet matters. But I would rather say the choice should be driven by conceptual considerations first. If, for the objects your need to manipulate, a natural ordering does not make sense, then do not use TreeSet. It is a sorted set, since it implements SortedSet. So it means you need to override function compareTo, which should be consistent with what returns function equals. For example if you have a set of objects of a class called Student, then I do not think a TreeSet would make sense, since there is no natural ordering between students. You can order them by their average grade, okay, but this is not a "natural ordering". Function compareTo would return 0 not only when two objects represent the same student, but also when two different students have the same grade. For the second case, equals would return false (unless you decide to make the latter return true when two different students have the same grade, which would make equals function have a misleading meaning, not to say a wrong meaning.) Please note this consistency between equals and compareTo is optional, but strongly recommended. Otherwise the contract of interface Set is broken, making your code misleading to other people, thus also possibly leading to unexpected behavior.

这个链接可能是关于这个问题的一个很好的信息来源。