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

这是我使用JonSkeet实现的助手类。

public static class HashCode
{
    public const int Start = 17;

    public static int Hash<T>(this int hash, T obj)
    {
        var h = EqualityComparer<T>.Default.GetHashCode(obj);
        return unchecked((hash * 31) + h);
    }
}

用法:

public override int GetHashCode()
{
    return HashCode.Start
        .Hash(_field1)
        .Hash(_field2)
        .Hash(_field3);
}

如果要避免为System.Int32编写扩展方法:

public readonly struct HashCode
{
    private readonly int _value;

    public HashCode(int value) => _value = value;

    public static HashCode Start { get; } = new HashCode(17);

    public static implicit operator int(HashCode hash) => hash._value;

    public HashCode Hash<T>(T obj)
    {
        var h = EqualityComparer<T>.Default.GetHashCode(obj);
        return unchecked(new HashCode((_value * 31) + h));
    }

    public override int GetHashCode() => _value;
}

它仍然避免了任何堆分配,使用方式完全相同:

public override int GetHashCode()
{
    // This time `HashCode.Start` is not an `Int32`, it's a `HashCode` instance.
    // And the result is implicitly converted to `Int32`.
    return HashCode.Start
        .Hash(_field1)
        .Hash(_field2)     
        .Hash(_field3);
}

编辑(2018年5月):EqualityComparer<T>。默认getter现在是JIT内在的-Stephen Toub在这篇博文中提到了pull请求。

这是我的哈希码助手。它的优点是它使用泛型类型参数,因此不会导致装箱:

public static class HashHelper
{
    public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2)
    {
         unchecked
         {
             return 31 * arg1.GetHashCode() + arg2.GetHashCode();
         }
    }

    public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3)
    {
        unchecked
        {
            int hash = arg1.GetHashCode();
            hash = 31 * hash + arg2.GetHashCode();
            return 31 * hash + arg3.GetHashCode();
        }
    }

    public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, 
        T4 arg4)
    {
        unchecked
        {
            int hash = arg1.GetHashCode();
            hash = 31 * hash + arg2.GetHashCode();
            hash = 31 * hash + arg3.GetHashCode();
            return 31 * hash + arg4.GetHashCode();
        }
    }

    public static int GetHashCode<T>(T[] list)
    {
        unchecked
        {
            int hash = 0;
            foreach (var item in list)
            {
                hash = 31 * hash + item.GetHashCode();
            }
            return hash;
        }
    }

    public static int GetHashCode<T>(IEnumerable<T> list)
    {
        unchecked
        {
            int hash = 0;
            foreach (var item in list)
            {
                hash = 31 * hash + item.GetHashCode();
            }
            return hash;
        }
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// Gets a hashcode for a collection for that the order of items 
    /// does not matter.
    /// So {1, 2, 3} and {3, 2, 1} will get same hash code.
    /// </summary>
    public static int GetHashCodeForOrderNoMatterCollection<T>(
        IEnumerable<T> list)
    {
        unchecked
        {
            int hash = 0;
            int count = 0;
            foreach (var item in list)
            {
                hash += item.GetHashCode();
                count++;
            }
            return 31 * hash + count.GetHashCode();
        }
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// Alternative way to get a hashcode is to use a fluent 
    /// interface like this:<br />
    /// return 0.CombineHashCode(field1).CombineHashCode(field2).
    ///     CombineHashCode(field3);
    /// </summary>
    public static int CombineHashCode<T>(this int hashCode, T arg)
    {
        unchecked
        {
            return 31 * hashCode + arg.GetHashCode();   
        }
    }

此外,它还具有扩展方法来提供流畅的界面,因此您可以这样使用它:

public override int GetHashCode()
{
    return HashHelper.GetHashCode(Manufacturer, PartN, Quantity);
}

或者像这样:

public override int GetHashCode()
{
    return 0.CombineHashCode(Manufacturer)
        .CombineHashCode(PartN)
        .CombineHashCode(Quantity);
}

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();
}

如果我们的财产不超过8处(希望如此),这里还有另一种选择。

ValueTuple是一个结构,似乎有一个可靠的GetHashCode实现。

这意味着我们可以简单地这样做:

// Yay, no allocations and no custom implementations!
public override int GetHashCode() => (this.PropA, this.PropB).GetHashCode();

让我们来看看.NETCore当前对ValueTuple的GetHashCode的实现。

这来自ValueTuple:

    internal static int CombineHashCodes(int h1, int h2)
    {
        return HashHelpers.Combine(HashHelpers.Combine(HashHelpers.RandomSeed, h1), h2);
    }

    internal static int CombineHashCodes(int h1, int h2, int h3)
    {
        return HashHelpers.Combine(CombineHashCodes(h1, h2), h3);
    }

这来自HashHelper:

    public static readonly int RandomSeed = Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();

    public static int Combine(int h1, int h2)
    {
        unchecked
        {
            // RyuJIT optimizes this to use the ROL instruction
            // Related GitHub pull request: dotnet/coreclr#1830
            uint rol5 = ((uint)h1 << 5) | ((uint)h1 >> 27);
            return ((int)rol5 + h1) ^ h2;
        }
    }

英语:

向左旋转(循环移位)h1 5个位置。将结果和h1相加。将结果与h2进行异或运算。首先对{static random seed,h1}执行上述操作。对于每个其他项目,对上一个结果和下一个项目(例如h2)执行操作。

如果能更多地了解这个ROL-5散列代码算法的财产,那就太好了。

遗憾的是,为我们自己的GetHashCode延迟ValueTuple可能不像我们希望的那样快。相关讨论中的这条评论说明了直接调用HashHelpers.Combine更具性能。另一方面,这是内部的,所以我们必须复制代码,牺牲了我们在这里获得的大部分。此外,我们将负责记住首先与随机种子结合。我不知道如果我们跳过这一步会有什么后果。

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;
                }
        }
    }