我同意Andrew的回答。我们在应用程序中做同样的事情，但不是将uuid存储为VARCHAR/CHAR，而是将其分割为两个长值。请参阅UUID.getLeastSignificantBits()和UUID.getMostSignificantBits()。

还有一件事需要考虑，对UUID. randomuuid()的调用非常慢，因此您可能希望只在需要时才惰性地生成UUID，例如在持久化期间或调用equals()/hashCode()期间

@MappedSuperclass
public abstract class AbstractJpaEntity extends AbstractMutable implements Identifiable, Modifiable {

    private static final long   serialVersionUID    = 1L;

    @Version
    @Column(name = "version", nullable = false)
    private int                 version             = 0;

    @Column(name = "uuid_least_sig_bits")
    private long                uuidLeastSigBits    = 0;

    @Column(name = "uuid_most_sig_bits")
    private long                uuidMostSigBits     = 0;

    private transient int       hashCode            = 0;

    public AbstractJpaEntity() {
        //
    }

    public abstract Integer getId();

    public abstract void setId(final Integer id);

    public boolean isPersisted() {
        return getId() != null;
    }

    public int getVersion() {
        return version;
    }

    //calling UUID.randomUUID() is pretty expensive, 
    //so this is to lazily initialize uuid bits.
    private void initUUID() {
        final UUID uuid = UUID.randomUUID();
        uuidLeastSigBits = uuid.getLeastSignificantBits();
        uuidMostSigBits = uuid.getMostSignificantBits();
    }

    public long getUuidLeastSigBits() {
        //its safe to assume uuidMostSigBits of a valid UUID is never zero
        if (uuidMostSigBits == 0) {
            initUUID();
        }
        return uuidLeastSigBits;
    }

    public long getUuidMostSigBits() {
        //its safe to assume uuidMostSigBits of a valid UUID is never zero
        if (uuidMostSigBits == 0) {
            initUUID();
        }
        return uuidMostSigBits;
    }

    public UUID getUuid() {
        return new UUID(getUuidMostSigBits(), getUuidLeastSigBits());
    }

    @Override
    public int hashCode() {
        if (hashCode == 0) {
            hashCode = (int) (getUuidMostSigBits() >> 32 ^ getUuidMostSigBits() ^ getUuidLeastSigBits() >> 32 ^ getUuidLeastSigBits());
        }
        return hashCode;
    }

    @Override
    public boolean equals(final Object obj) {
        if (obj == null) {
            return false;
        }
        if (!(obj instanceof AbstractJpaEntity)) {
            return false;
        }
        //UUID guarantees a pretty good uniqueness factor across distributed systems, so we can safely
        //dismiss getClass().equals(obj.getClass()) here since the chance of two different objects (even 
        //if they have different types) having the same UUID is astronomical
        final AbstractJpaEntity entity = (AbstractJpaEntity) obj;
        return getUuidMostSigBits() == entity.getUuidMostSigBits() && getUuidLeastSigBits() == entity.getUuidLeastSigBits();
    }

    @PrePersist
    public void prePersist() {
        // make sure the uuid is set before persisting
        getUuidLeastSigBits();
    }

}

业务密钥方法不适合我们。我们使用DB生成的ID、临时临时tempId和重写equal()/hashcode()来解决这个困境。所有实体都是Entity的后代。优点:

DB中没有额外字段 在后代实体中没有额外的编码，一种方法适用于所有的实体 没有性能问题(如UUID)， DB Id生成 使用hashmap没有问题(不需要记住equal & etc的使用)。 新实体的Hashcode即使在持久化后也不会及时更改

缺点:

序列化和反序列化非持久化实体可能会出现问题 从DB重新加载后，保存的实体的Hashcode可能会改变 非持久化对象被认为总是不同的(也许这是对的?) 还有什么?

看看我们的代码:

@MappedSuperclass
abstract public class Entity implements Serializable {

    @Id
    @GeneratedValue
    @Column(nullable = false, updatable = false)
    protected Long id;

    @Transient
    private Long tempId;

    public void setId(Long id) {
        this.id = id;
    }

    public Long getId() {
        return id;
    }

    private void setTempId(Long tempId) {
        this.tempId = tempId;
    }

    // Fix Id on first call from equal() or hashCode()
    private Long getTempId() {
        if (tempId == null)
            // if we have id already, use it, else use 0
            setTempId(getId() == null ? 0 : getId());
        return tempId;
    }

    @Override
    public boolean equals(Object obj) {
        if (super.equals(obj))
            return true;
        // take proxied object into account
        if (obj == null || !Hibernate.getClass(obj).equals(this.getClass()))
            return false;
        Entity o = (Entity) obj;
        return getTempId() != 0 && o.getTempId() != 0 && getTempId().equals(o.getTempId());
    }

    // hash doesn't change in time
    @Override
    public int hashCode() {
        return getTempId() == 0 ? super.hashCode() : getTempId().hashCode();
    }
}

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()
}

实际上，似乎Option 2(主键)是最常用的。 自然的和不可变的业务密钥是很少的事情，创建和支持合成密钥对于解决情况来说太沉重了，这可能从来没有发生过。 看一下spring-data-jpa AbstractPersistable实现(唯一需要注意的是:对于Hibernate实现使用Hibernate. getclass)。

public boolean equals(Object obj) {
    if (null == obj) {
        return false;
    }
    if (this == obj) {
        return true;
    }
    if (!getClass().equals(ClassUtils.getUserClass(obj))) {
        return false;
    }
    AbstractPersistable<?> that = (AbstractPersistable<?>) obj;
    return null == this.getId() ? false : this.getId().equals(that.getId());
}

@Override
public int hashCode() {
    int hashCode = 17;
    hashCode += null == getId() ? 0 : getId().hashCode() * 31;
    return hashCode;
}

注意在HashSet/HashMap中操作新对象。 相反，选项1(保留对象实现)在合并后被破坏，这是非常常见的情况。

如果你没有业务键，并且需要在哈希结构中操作新实体，则将hashCode重写为常量，如下所示Vlad Mihalcea的建议。

Jakarta Persistence 3.0，第4.12节写道:

相同抽象模式类型的两个实体当且仅当它们具有相同的主键值时相等。

我看不出为什么Java代码的行为应该有所不同。

If the entity class is in a so called "transient" state, i.e. it's not yet persisted and it has no identifier, then the hashCode/equals methods can not return a value, they ought to blow up, ideally implicitly with a NullPointerException when the method attempts to traverse the ID. Either way, this will effectively stop application code from putting a non-managed entity into a hash-based data structure. In fact, why not go one step further and blow up if the class and identifier are equal, but other important attributes such as the version are unequal (IllegalStateException)! Fail-fast in a deterministic way is always the preferred option.

警告:也要记录下爆发行为。文档本身很重要，但它也希望能够阻止初级开发人员在未来对您的代码做一些愚蠢的事情(他们倾向于压制发生NullPointerException的地方，他们最不关心的是副作用，lol)。

哦，总是使用getClass()而不是instanceof。equals方法要求对称性。如果b等于a，那么a必须等于b。对于子类，instanceof打破了这种关系(a不是b的实例)。

尽管我个人总是使用getClass()，即使在实现非实体类(类型是状态，所以子类添加状态，即使子类是空的或只包含行为)，只有当类是final时，instanceof才会很好。但实体类必须不是最终的(§2.1)，所以我们真的别无选择。

Some folks may not like getClass(), because of the persistence provider's proxy wrapping the object. This might have been a problem in the past, but it really shouldn't be. A provider not returning different proxy classes for different entities, well, I'd say that's not a very smart provider lol. Generally, we shouldn't solve a problem until there is a problem. And, it seems like Hibernate's own documentation doesn't even see it worthwhile mentioning. In fact, they elegantly use getClass() in their own examples (see this).

Lastly, if one has an entity subclass that is an entity, and the inheritance mapping strategy used is not the default ("single table"), but configured to be a "joined subtype", then the primary key in that subclass table will be the same as the superclass table. If the mapping strategy is "table per concrete class", then the primary key may be the same as in the superclass. An entity subclass is very likely to be adding state and therefore just as likely to be logically a different thing. But an equals implementation using instanceof can not necessarily and secondarily rely on the ID only, as we saw may be the same for different entities.

在我看来，instanceof在非final Java类中根本没有位置。对于持久实体来说尤其如此。

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?