在我看来，你有3个实现equals/hashCode的选项

使用应用程序生成的标识，即UUID 基于业务键实现它 基于主键实现它

使用应用程序生成的标识是最简单的方法，但也有一些缺点

当使用它作为PK时，连接速度较慢，因为128位比32或64位大 “调试更困难”，因为用自己的眼睛检查某些数据是否正确是相当困难的

如果你能克服这些缺点，那就使用这种方法。

为了克服连接问题，可以使用UUID作为自然键，使用序列值作为主键，但是在具有嵌入id的组合子实体中，仍然可能遇到equals/hashCode实现问题，因为您希望基于主键进行连接。在子实体id中使用自然键，而在引用父实体时使用主键是一种很好的折衷方法。

@Entity class Parent {
  @Id @GeneratedValue Long id;
  @NaturalId UUID uuid;
  @OneToMany(mappedBy = "parent") Set<Child> children;
  // equals/hashCode based on uuid
}

@Entity class Child {
  @EmbeddedId ChildId id;
  @ManyToOne Parent parent;

  @Embeddable class ChildId {
    UUID parentUuid;
    UUID childUuid;
    // equals/hashCode based on parentUuid and childUuid
  }
  // equals/hashCode based on id
}

在我看来，这是最干净的方法，因为它将避免所有的缺点，同时为您提供一个值(UUID)，您可以与外部系统共享，而不暴露系统内部。

基于业务键来实现它(如果你能从用户那里得到的话)是个好主意，但也有一些缺点

大多数情况下，这个业务键是用户提供的某种代码，很少是多个属性的组合。

连接速度较慢，因为基于可变长度文本的连接速度很慢。如果键超过一定长度，一些DBMS甚至可能在创建索引时遇到问题。 根据我的经验，业务键往往会发生变化，这就需要对引用它的对象进行级联更新。如果外部系统引用它，这是不可能的

在我看来，你不应该专门实现或使用业务键。这是一个很好的附加功能，用户可以通过业务键快速搜索，但系统不应该依赖它来运行。

基于主键实现它有它的问题，但也许这不是什么大问题

如果需要向外部系统公开id，请使用我建议的UUID方法。如果您不这样做，您仍然可以使用UUID方法，但不必这样做。 在equals/hashCode中使用DBMS生成的id的问题源于这样一个事实，即对象可能在分配id之前已被添加到基于哈希的集合中。

解决这个问题的明显方法是在分配id之前不将对象添加到基于哈希的集合中。我知道这并不总是可行的，因为您可能需要在分配id之前进行重复数据删除。要仍然能够使用基于散列的集合，您只需在分配id后重新构建集合。

你可以这样做:

@Entity class Parent {
  @Id @GeneratedValue Long id;
  @OneToMany(mappedBy = "parent") Set<Child> children;
  // equals/hashCode based on id
}

@Entity class Child {
  @EmbeddedId ChildId id;
  @ManyToOne Parent parent;

  @PrePersist void postPersist() {
    parent.children.remove(this);
  }
  @PostPersist void postPersist() {
    parent.children.add(this);
  }

  @Embeddable class ChildId {
    Long parentId;
    @GeneratedValue Long childId;
    // equals/hashCode based on parentId and childId
  }
  // equals/hashCode based on id
}

我自己还没有测试过确切的方法，所以我不确定在持久化事件之前和之后更改集合是如何工作的，但这个想法是:

临时从基于散列的集合中移除对象 坚持它 将对象重新添加到基于散列的集合中

解决这个问题的另一种方法是在更新/持久化之后重新构建所有基于哈希的模型。

最后，决定权在你。我个人大部分时间使用基于序列的方法，只有在需要向外部系统公开标识符时才使用UUID方法。

下面是一个简单的(经过测试的)Scala解决方案。

请注意，此解决方案不属于这3类中的任何一类 在问题中给出。 我所有的实体都是UUIDEntity的子类，所以我遵循 不要重复自己(DRY)原则。 如果需要，可以使UUID生成更精确(通过使用更多 伪随机数)。

Scala代码:

import javax.persistence._
import scala.util.Random

@Entity
@Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.TABLE_PER_CLASS)
abstract class UUIDEntity {
  @Id  @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.TABLE)
  var id:java.lang.Long=null
  var uuid:java.lang.Long=Random.nextLong()
  override def equals(o:Any):Boolean= 
    o match{
      case o : UUIDEntity => o.uuid==uuid
      case _ => false
    }
  override def hashCode() = uuid.hashCode()
}

阅读这篇关于主题的非常好的文章:不要让Hibernate窃取您的身份。

文章的结论是这样的:

Object identity is deceptively hard to implement correctly when objects are persisted to a database. However, the problems stem entirely from allowing objects to exist without an id before they are saved. We can solve these problems by taking the responsibility of assigning object IDs away from object-relational mapping frameworks such as Hibernate. Instead, object IDs can be assigned as soon as the object is instantiated. This makes object identity simple and error-free, and reduces the amount of code needed in the domain model.

我们通常在实体中有两个id:

仅用于持久化层(以便持久化提供程序和数据库能够找出对象之间的关系)。 是为了我们的应用程序需要(特别是equals()和hashCode())

来看看:

@Entity
public class User {

    @Id
    private int id;  // Persistence ID
    private UUID uuid; // Business ID

    // assuming all fields are subject to change
    // If we forbid users change their email or screenName we can use these
    // fields for business ID instead, but generally that's not the case
    private String screenName;
    private String email;

    // I don't put UUID generation in constructor for performance reasons. 
    // I call setUuid() when I create a new entity
    public User() {
    }

    // This method is only called when a brand new entity is added to 
    // persistence context - I add it as a safety net only but it might work 
    // for you. In some cases (say, when I add this entity to some set before 
    // calling em.persist()) setting a UUID might be too late. If I get a log 
    // output it means that I forgot to call setUuid() somewhere.
    @PrePersist
    public void ensureUuid() {
        if (getUuid() == null) {
            log.warn(format("User's UUID wasn't set on time. " 
                + "uuid: %s, name: %s, email: %s",
                getUuid(), getScreenName(), getEmail()));
            setUuid(UUID.randomUUID());
        }
    }

    // equals() and hashCode() rely on non-changing data only. Thus we 
    // guarantee that no matter how field values are changed we won't 
    // lose our entity in hash-based Sets.
    @Override
    public int hashCode() {
        return getUuid().hashCode();
    }

    // Note that I don't use direct field access inside my entity classes and
    // call getters instead. That's because Persistence provider (PP) might
    // want to load entity data lazily. And I don't use 
    //    this.getClass() == other.getClass() 
    // for the same reason. In order to support laziness PP might need to wrap
    // my entity object in some kind of proxy, i.e. subclassing it.
    @Override
    public boolean equals(final Object obj) {
        if (this == obj)
            return true;
        if (!(obj instanceof User))
            return false;
        return getUuid().equals(((User) obj).getUuid());
    }

    // Getters and setters follow
}

编辑:澄清我关于调用setUuid()方法的观点。下面是一个典型的场景:

User user = new User();
// user.setUuid(UUID.randomUUID()); // I should have called it here
user.setName("Master Yoda");
user.setEmail("yoda@jedicouncil.org");

jediSet.add(user); // here's bug - we forgot to set UUID and 
                   //we won't find Yoda in Jedi set

em.persist(user); // ensureUuid() was called and printed the log for me.

jediCouncilSet.add(user); // Ok, we got a UUID now

当我运行测试并看到日志输出时，我解决了这个问题:

User user = new User();
user.setUuid(UUID.randomUUID());

或者，也可以提供一个单独的构造函数:

@Entity
public class User {

    @Id
    private int id;  // Persistence ID
    private UUID uuid; // Business ID

    ... // fields

    // Constructor for Persistence provider to use
    public User() {
    }

    // Constructor I use when creating new entities
    public User(UUID uuid) {
        setUuid(uuid);
    }

    ... // rest of the entity.
}

我的例子是这样的:

User user = new User(UUID.randomUUID());
...
jediSet.add(user); // no bug this time

em.persist(user); // and no log output

我使用默认构造函数和setter，但您可能会发现双构造函数方法更适合您。

我试着自己回答这个问题，直到我读了这篇文章，尤其是画了一个，我才完全满意找到的解决方案。我喜欢他懒创建UUID和最佳存储它的方式。

但我想增加更多的灵活性，即惰性创建UUID仅当hashCode()/equals()被访问时，第一次持久化实体与每个解决方案的优点:

Equals()表示“对象指向相同的逻辑实体” 尽可能使用数据库ID，因为为什么我要做两次工作(性能问题) 防止在尚未持久的实体上访问hashCode()/equals()时出现问题，并在它确实被持久后保持相同的行为

我真的很感激对我的混合解决方案的反馈如下

public class MyEntity { @Id() @Column(name = "ID", length = 20, nullable = false, unique = true) @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY) private Long id = null; @Transient private UUID uuid = null; @Column(name = "UUID_MOST", nullable = true, unique = false, updatable = false) private Long uuidMostSignificantBits = null; @Column(name = "UUID_LEAST", nullable = true, unique = false, updatable = false) private Long uuidLeastSignificantBits = null; @Override public final int hashCode() { return this.getUuid().hashCode(); } @Override public final boolean equals(Object toBeCompared) { if(this == toBeCompared) { return true; } if(toBeCompared == null) { return false; } if(!this.getClass().isInstance(toBeCompared)) { return false; } return this.getUuid().equals(((MyEntity)toBeCompared).getUuid()); } public final UUID getUuid() { // UUID already accessed on this physical object if(this.uuid != null) { return this.uuid; } // UUID one day generated on this entity before it was persisted if(this.uuidMostSignificantBits != null) { this.uuid = new UUID(this.uuidMostSignificantBits, this.uuidLeastSignificantBits); // UUID never generated on this entity before it was persisted } else if(this.getId() != null) { this.uuid = new UUID(this.getId(), this.getId()); // UUID never accessed on this not yet persisted entity } else { this.setUuid(UUID.randomUUID()); } return this.uuid; } private void setUuid(UUID uuid) { if(uuid == null) { return; } // For the one hypothetical case where generated UUID could colude with UUID build from IDs if(uuid.getMostSignificantBits() == uuid.getLeastSignificantBits()) { throw new Exception("UUID: " + this.getUuid() + " format is only for internal use"); } this.uuidMostSignificantBits = uuid.getMostSignificantBits(); this.uuidLeastSignificantBits = uuid.getLeastSignificantBits(); this.uuid = uuid; }

我总是重写equals/hashcode，并基于业务id实现它。对我来说这是最合理的解决办法。请看下面的链接。

总而言之，这里列出了处理equals/hashCode的不同方法中哪些是有效的，哪些是无效的:

编辑:

为了解释为什么这对我有用:

I don't usually use hashed-based collection (HashMap/HashSet) in my JPA application. If I must, I prefer to create UniqueList solution. I think changing business id on runtime is not a best practice for any database application. On rare cases where there is no other solution, I'd do special treatment like remove the element and put it back to the hashed-based collection. For my model, I set the business id on constructor and doesn't provide setters for it. I let JPA implementation to change the field instead of the property. UUID solution seems to be overkill. Why UUID if you have natural business id? I would after all set the uniqueness of the business id in the database. Why having THREE indexes for each table in the database then?