在.NET中,GetHashCode方法在整个.NET基类库的许多地方都使用。正确执行它对于在集合中或确定相等时快速查找项目尤为重要。
对于如何为自定义类实现GetHashCode,是否有标准算法或最佳实践,以便不会降低性能?
在.NET中,GetHashCode方法在整个.NET基类库的许多地方都使用。正确执行它对于在集合中或确定相等时快速查找项目尤为重要。
对于如何为自定义类实现GetHashCode,是否有标准算法或最佳实践,以便不会降低性能?
当前回答
我的大部分工作都是通过数据库连接完成的,这意味着我的类都具有来自数据库的唯一标识符。我总是使用数据库中的ID来生成哈希代码。
// Unique ID from database
private int _id;
...
{
return _id.GetHashCode();
}
其他回答
我想把我的最新发现添加到我经常提到的这个主题中。
我当前的visual studio/项目设置提供了将元组自动重构为结构的功能。这将生成如下GetHashCode函数:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
int hashCode = -2088324004;
hashCode = hashCode * -1521134295 + AuftragGesperrt.GetHashCode();
hashCode = hashCode * -1521134295 + Auftrag_gesperrt_von.GetHashCode();
hashCode = hashCode * -1521134295 + Auftrag_gesperrt_am.GetHashCode();
return hashCode;
}
编辑:为了澄清AuftragGesperrt、Auftrag _gesperrt_von和Auftrag-gesperrt _am是财产。如果微软的开发人员使用这个功能,这可能是一个不错的解决方案。
我在使用上面选择的实现时遇到了浮点和小数的问题。
此测试失败(浮点数;哈希值相同,即使我将2个值切换为负值):
var obj1 = new { A = 100m, B = 100m, C = 100m, D = 100m};
var obj2 = new { A = 100m, B = 100m, C = -100m, D = -100m};
var hash1 = ComputeHash(obj1.A, obj1.B, obj1.C, obj1.D);
var hash2 = ComputeHash(obj2.A, obj2.B, obj2.C, obj2.D);
Assert.IsFalse(hash1 == hash2, string.Format("Hashcode values should be different hash1:{0} hash2:{1}",hash1,hash2));
但是这个测试通过了(int):
var obj1 = new { A = 100m, B = 100m, C = 100, D = 100};
var obj2 = new { A = 100m, B = 100m, C = -100, D = -100};
var hash1 = ComputeHash(obj1.A, obj1.B, obj1.C, obj1.D);
var hash2 = ComputeHash(obj2.A, obj2.B, obj2.C, obj2.D);
Assert.IsFalse(hash1 == hash2, string.Format("Hashcode values should be different hash1:{0} hash2:{1}",hash1,hash2));
我改变了我的实现,不再对原始类型使用GetHashCode,它似乎工作得更好
private static int InternalComputeHash(params object[] obj)
{
unchecked
{
var result = (int)SEED_VALUE_PRIME;
for (uint i = 0; i < obj.Length; i++)
{
var currval = result;
var nextval = DetermineNextValue(obj[i]);
result = (result * MULTIPLIER_VALUE_PRIME) + nextval;
}
return result;
}
}
private static int DetermineNextValue(object value)
{
unchecked
{
int hashCode;
if (value is short
|| value is int
|| value is byte
|| value is sbyte
|| value is uint
|| value is ushort
|| value is ulong
|| value is long
|| value is float
|| value is double
|| value is decimal)
{
return Convert.ToInt32(value);
}
else
{
return value != null ? value.GetHashCode() : 0;
}
}
}
我通常会使用Josh Bloch精彩的有效Java中给出的实现。它很快,创建了一个很好的哈希,不太可能导致冲突。选择两个不同的素数,例如17和23,并执行以下操作:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
unchecked // Overflow is fine, just wrap
{
int hash = 17;
// Suitable nullity checks etc, of course :)
hash = hash * 23 + field1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * 23 + field2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * 23 + field3.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
正如评论中所指出的,你可能会发现最好选择一个大素数来乘。很显然486187639很好。。。虽然我见过的大多数小数字的例子都倾向于使用素数,但至少有一些类似的算法经常使用非素数。例如,在后面的FNV示例中,我使用的数字显然很好,但初始值不是质数。(不过乘法常数是质数。我不知道这有多重要。)
这比XORing散列码的常见做法要好,主要原因有两个。假设我们有一个具有两个int字段的类型:
XorHash(x, x) == XorHash(y, y) == 0 for all x, y
XorHash(x, y) == XorHash(y, x) for all x, y
顺便说一下,早期的算法是C#编译器当前用于匿名类型的算法。
这个页面提供了很多选项。我认为,在大多数情况下,上述内容“足够好”,而且非常容易记住并正确理解。FNV替代方案同样简单,但使用不同的常数和XOR代替ADD作为组合操作。它看起来像下面的代码,但正常的FNV算法对单个字节进行操作,因此这需要进行修改,以每个字节执行一次迭代,而不是每个32位哈希值。FNV也设计用于可变长度的数据,而我们在这里使用它的方式总是用于相同数量的字段值。对这个答案的评论表明,这里的代码实际上并不像上面的添加方法那样有效(在测试的示例案例中)。
// Note: Not quite FNV!
public override int GetHashCode()
{
unchecked // Overflow is fine, just wrap
{
int hash = (int) 2166136261;
// Suitable nullity checks etc, of course :)
hash = (hash * 16777619) ^ field1.GetHashCode();
hash = (hash * 16777619) ^ field2.GetHashCode();
hash = (hash * 16777619) ^ field3.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
请注意,需要注意的一点是,理想情况下,您应该防止在将其添加到依赖于哈希代码的集合后,对等式敏感(因此对哈希代码敏感)的状态发生变化。
根据文件:
可以为不可变引用类型重写GetHashCode。通常,对于可变引用类型,只有在以下情况下才应重写GetHashCode:您可以从不可变的字段计算哈希代码;或当可变对象包含在依赖其哈希代码的集合中时,可以确保该对象的哈希代码不会更改。
FNV文章的链接已断开,但这是互联网档案馆的一份副本:永恒的困惑-哈希的艺术
与夜编码器的解决方案非常相似,只是如果你想提高素数更容易。
PS:这是你嘴里吐出一点东西的时候之一,因为你知道这可以用9个默认值重构成一个方法,但它会更慢,所以你闭上眼睛,试着忘掉它。
/// <summary>
/// Try not to look at the source code. It works. Just rely on it.
/// </summary>
public static class HashHelper
{
private const int PrimeOne = 17;
private const int PrimeTwo = 23;
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5, T6 arg6, T7 arg7, T8 arg8, T9 arg9, T10 arg10)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg6.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg7.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg8.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg9.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg10.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5, T6 arg6, T7 arg7, T8 arg8, T9 arg9)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg6.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg7.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg8.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg9.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5, T6 arg6, T7 arg7, T8 arg8)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg6.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg7.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg8.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5, T6 arg6, T7 arg7)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg6.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg7.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5, T6 arg6)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg6.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
}
我的大部分工作都是通过数据库连接完成的,这意味着我的类都具有来自数据库的唯一标识符。我总是使用数据库中的ID来生成哈希代码。
// Unique ID from database
private int _id;
...
{
return _id.GetHashCode();
}