As part of an ongoing class project, we were asked to implement Maps for better object linking.
In short, we currently have four arraylists which hold objects
// Array Lists used for sorting.
private static ArrayList<Party> partyList = new ArrayList<Party>();
private static ArrayList<Creature> creatureList = new ArrayList<Creature>();
private static ArrayList<Treasure> treasureList = new ArrayList<Treasure>();
private static ArrayList<Artifact> artifactList = new ArrayList<Artifact>();
Each class has their own fields (ie, Party has "index","name", Creature has "index", "name", "age", height", etc...but they all have a unique index)
This week we are to implement hashmaps, where the key of an object, is its index.
so, as an exmaple:
creatureMap.put(creature.index, creature)
...
Our program also allows searching. So i understand that now when we search by an index, we just search the appropriate hashmap for the index we want, and work with the object that is its value.
However, our program also allows the user to search by name, height, weight, etc. So, how are hashmaps being used efficiently here if it only helps when searching by index? What happens if i want to search a creature by name? I would have to loop through every value in the hashmap, look at its 'name' field..which is exactly what i am doing with the arraylist.
Our professor said this when someone asked a similar question:
The idea is that in the first project, the simple approach was to
insert all items into array lists and when one needed to link a
creature to a party, or an item to a creature, one would have to
search the ArrayList linearly until the index of the item was found.
This is O(n) operation if the ArrayList is not sorted, and an O(log n)
operation if the list is sorted, but the sorting is typically O(n*n)
or O(n log n) depending on the sorting operation used.
This week, I am asking you to implement an O(1) searching system based
on a map data structure. Thus, we should use the index of a item as
its key to generate the links. This is used once during processing of
the input file.
Thus, I am not sure i am understanding the concept of Maps / key-value pairs correctly.
Your understanding is correct: if your key is an index, you can only use the map to efficiently lookup by index. If you wanted to search by name, then you would have to key on the name.
I'm not too sure on what your professor meant by this:
Thus, we should use the index of a item as its key to generate the links.
(I think he refers to linking objects by index, as in "link a creature to a party" - maybe he did not refer to the use of hashmaps for searching)
On a side note, it's good practice to declare variables based on interfaces rather than concrete types. In your example, you should define your list fields as List instead of ArrayList:
private static List<Party> partyList = new ArrayList<Party>();
Running through your questions (and statements) in order....
So i understand that now when we search by an index, we just search
the appropriate hashmap for the index we want, and work with the
object that is its value.
That is correct.
However, our program also allows the user to search by name, height, weight, etc. So, how are hashmaps being used efficiently here if it only helps when searching by index?
If your hashmap is only storing by index then you are correct that it does not help you search by any other field. You could create a map for those fields also, but I don't think that's what your professor want (see below)
What happens if i want to search a creature by name? I would have to loop through every value in the hashmap, look at its 'name' field..which is exactly what i am doing with the arraylist.
Yes, if you needed to search by name, then you would use the values() method and iterate through that, checking each item.
when one needed to link a creature to a party, or an item to a creature, one would have to search the ArrayList linearly until the index of the item was found
...
Thus, we should use the index of a item as its key to generate the links. This is used once during processing of the input file.
This suggests to me that there is another part of the assignment - something to do with reading input from a file, and linking parties, creatures and items together.
I assume that input file for the parties refers to the creatures by index (and likewise for the creatures referring to items).
It is that linkage that the professor wants you to speed up by using these hashmaps.
I don't think he is trying to get you to change the way other sorts of searching works
(Obviously this is a guess since I don't know what the assignment actually says)
Related
I am learning Java now and I am learning about different kinds of collections, so far I learned about LinkedList, ArrayList and Array[].
Now I've been introduced to Hash types of collections, HashSet and HashMap, and I didn't quite understand why there are useful, because the list of commands that they support is quietly limited, also, they are sorted in a random order and I need to Override the equal and HashKey methods in order to make it work right with class.
Now, what I don't understand is the benefits over the hassle of using these types instead of ArrayList of a costume class.
I mean, what Map is doing is connecting 2 objects as 1, but wouldn't it just be better to create a class that contains this 2 objects as parameters, and have getters to modify and use them?
If the benefit is that this Hash objects can only contain 1 object of the same name, wouldn't it just be easier to make the ArrayList check that the type is not already there before adding it?
So far I learned to choose when to use LinkedList, ArrayList or Array[] by the rule of "if it's really simple, use Array[], if it's a bit more complex use ArrayList (for example to hold collection of certain class), and if the list is dynamic with a lot of objects inside that need to change order according to removing or adding a new one in the middle or go back and forth within the list then use LinkedList.
But I couldn't understand when to prefer HashMap or HashSet, and I would be really glad if you could explain it to me.
Let me help you out here...
Hashed collections are the most efficient to add, search and remove data, since they hash the key (in HashMap) or the element (in HashSet) to find the place where they belong in a single step.
The concept of hashing is really simple. It is the process of representing an object as a number that can work as it´s id.
For example, if you have a string in Java like String name = "Jeremy";, and you print its hashcode: System.out.println(name.hashCode());, you will see a big number there (-2079637766), that was created using that string object values (in this string object, it's characters), that way, that number can be used as an Id for that object.
So the Hashed collections like the ones mentioned above, use this number to use it as an array index to find the elements in no-time. But obviously is too big to use it as an array index for a possible small array. So they need to reduce that number so it fits in the range of the array size. (HashMap and HashSet use arrays to store their elements).
The operation that they use to reduce that number is called hashing, and is something like this: Math.abs(-2079637766 % arrayLength);.
It's not like that exactly, it's a bit more complex, but this is to simplify.
Let's say that arrayLength = 16;
The % operator will reduce that big number to a number smaller than 16, so that it can be fit in the array.
That is why a Hashed collection will not allow duplicate, because if you try to add the same object or an equivalent one (like 2 strings with the same characters), it will produce the same hashcode and will override whatever value is in the result index.
In your question, you mentioned that if you are worried about duplicates items in an ArrayList, we can just check if the item is there before inserting it, so this way we don't need to use a HashSet. But that is not a good idea, because if you call the method list.contains(elem); in an ArrayList, it needs to go one by one comparing the elements to see if it's there. If you have 1 million elements in the ArrayList, and you check if an element is there, but it is not there, the ArrayList iterated over 1 million elements, that is not good. But with a HashSet, it would only hashed the object and go directly where it is supposed to be in the array and check, doing it in just 1 step, instead of 1 million. So you see how efficient a HashSet is compared to an ArrayList.
The same happens with a HashMap of size 1 million, that it will only take 1 single step to check if a key is there, and not 1 million.
The same thing happens when you need to add, find and remove an element, with the hashed collections it will do all that in a single step (constant time, doesn't depend on the size of the map), but that varies for other structures.
That's why it is really efficient and widely used.
Main Difference between an ArrayList and a LinkedList:
If you want to find the element at place 500 in an ArrayList of size 1000, you do: list.get(500); and it will do that in a single step, because an ArrayList is implemented with an array, so with that 500, it goes directly where the element is in the array.
But a LinkedList is not implemented with an array, but with objects pointing to each other. This way, they need to go linearly and counting from 0, one by one until they get to the 500, which is not really efficient compared to the 1 single step of the ArrayList.
But when you need to add and remove elements in an ArrayList, sometimes the Array will need to be recreated so more elements fit in it, increasing the overhead.
But that doesn't happen with the LinkedList, since no array has to be recreated, only the objects (nodes) have to be re-referenced, which is done in a single step.
So an ArrayList is good when you won't be deleting or adding a lot of elements on the structure, but you are going to read a lot from it.
If you are going to add and remove a lot of elements, then is better a linked list since it has less work to do with those operations.
Why you need to implement the equals(), hashCode() methods for user-defined classes when you want to use those objects in HashMaps, and implement Comparable interface when you want to use those objects with TreeMaps?
Based on what I mentioned earlier for HashMaps, is possible that 2 different objects produce the same hash, if that happens, Java will not override the previous one or remove it, but it will keep them both in the same index. That is why you need to implement hashCode(), so you make sure that your objects will not have a really simple hashCode that can be easily duplicated.
And the reason why is recommended to override the equals() method is that if there is a collision (2 or more objects sharing the same hash in a HashMap), then how do you tell them apart? Well, asking the equals() method of those 2 objects if they are the same. So if you ask the map if it contains a certain key, and in that index, it finds 3 elements, it asks the equals() methods of those elements if its equals() to the key that was passed, if so, it returns that one. If you don't override the equals() method properly and specify what things you want to check for equality (like the properties name, age, etc.), then some unwanted overrides inside the HashMap will happen and you will not like it.
If you create your own classes, say, Person, and has properties like name, age, lastName and email, you can use those properties in the equals() method and if 2 different objects are passed but have the same values in your selected properties for equality, then you return true to indicate that they are the same, or false otherwise. Like the class String, that if you do s1.equals(s2); if s1 = new String("John"); and s2 = new String("John");, even though they are different objects in Java Heap Memory, the implementation of String.equals method uses the characters to determine if the objects are equals, and it returns true for this example.
To use a TreeMap with user-defined classes, you need to implement the Comparable interface, since the TreeMap will compare and sort the objects based on some properties, you need to specify by which properties your objects will be sorted. Will your objects be sorted by age? By name? By id? Or by any other property that you would like. Then, when you implement the Comparable interface and override the compareTo(UserDefinedClass o) method, you do your logic and return a positive number if the current object is greater than the o object passed, 0 if they are the same and a negative number if the current object is smaller. That way, the TreeMap will know how to sort them, based on the number returned.
First HashSet. In HashSet, you can easily get whether it contains given element. Let's have a set of people in your class and you want to ask whether a guy is in your class. You can make an array list of strings. And if you want to ask if a guy is in your class, you have to iterate through whole the list until you find him, which might be too slow for longer lists. If you use HashSet instead, the operation is much faster. You calculate the hash of the searched string and then you go directly to the hash, so you don't need to pass so many elements to answer your question. Well, you can also make a workaround to make the ArrayList faster to access for this purpose but this is already prepared.
And now HashMap. Now imagine that you also want to store a score for each person. So now you can use HashMap. You enter the name and you get his score in a short time, without the need of iterating through whole the data structure.
Does it make sense?
Concerning your question:
"But I couldn't understand when to prefer HashMap or HashSet, and I
would be really glad if you could explain it to me"
The HashMap implement the Map interface, to be used for mapping a Key (K) to a value (V) in constant time, and where order doesn't matter, so you can put and retrieve those data efficiently if you now the key.
And HashSet implement the Set interface, but is internanly using and HashMap, its role is to be used as a Set, meaning you're not supposed to retrieve an element, you just check that is in the set or not (mostly).
In HashMap, you can have identical value, while you can't in a Set (because its a property of a Set).
Concerning this question :
If the benefit is that this Hash objects can only contain 1 object of the same name, >wouldn't it just be easier to make the ArrayList check that the type is not already >there before adding it?
When dealing with collection, you have may base you choice of a particular one on the data representation but also on the way you want to access and store those data, how do you access it ? Do you need to sort them ? Because each implemenation may have different complexity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity), it become important.
Using the doc,
For ArrayList:
The add operation runs in amortized constant time, that is, adding n elements requires O(n) time. All of the other operations run in linear time (roughly speaking).
For HashMap:
This implementation provides constant-time performance for the basic operations (get and put), assuming the hash function disperses the elements properly among the buckets. Iteration over collection views requires time proportional to the "capacity" of the HashMap instance (the number of buckets) plus its size (the number of key-value mappings). Thus, it's very important not to set the initial capacity too high (or the load factor too low) if iteration performance is important.
So it's about the time complexity.
You may choose even more untypical collection for certain problems :).
This has little to do with Java specifically, and the choice depends mostly on performance requirements, but there's a fundamental difference that must be highlighted. Conceptually, Lists are types of collections that keep the order of insertion and may have duplicates, Sets are more like bags of items that have no specific order and no duplicates. Of course, different implementations may find a way around it (like a TreeSet).
First, let's check the difference between ArrayList and LinkedList. A linked list is a set of nodes, where each node contains a value and a link to the next and previous nodes. This makes inserting an element to a linked list a matter of appending a node to the end of the list, which is a quick operation since the memory does not have to be contiguous, as long as a node keeps a reference to the next node. On the other side, accessing a specific element requires transversing the entire list until finding it.
An array list, as the name implies, wraps an array. Accessing elements in an array by using its index is direct access, but inserting an element implies resizing the array to include the new element, so the memory it occupies is contiguous, making writes a bit heavier in this case.
A HashMap works like a dictionary, where for each key there's a value. The behavior of the insertion will mostly depend on how the hashCode and equals functions of the object used as a key are implemented. If the hashCode of two keys is the same, there's a hash collision, so equals will be used to understand if it's the same key or not. If equals is the same, then it's the same key, so the value is replaced. If not, the new value is added to the collection. Accessing and Writing values depends mostly on calculating the hash of the key followed by direct access to the value, making both operations really quick, O(1).
A set is pretty much like a hash map, without the "values" part, thus, it follows the same rules regarding the implementation of hashCode and equals operations for the added value.
It might be handy to study a bit about the Big-O notation and complexity of algorithms. If you are starting with Java, I'd strongly recommend the book Effective Java, by Joshua Bloch.
Hope it helps you dig further.
There is a Team object , that contains list of players List<Players>. All teams need to be stored in a Teams collection.
Conditions:
If a new player need to be added to a particular team , that particular team is retrieved from Teams and Player need to be added to Players list of that team
Each Team object in the collection Teams need to be unique based on the team name
Team objects in the collection need to be sorted based on team name.
Considerations:
In this scenario when I use List<Team> , I can achieve 1, 3 . But uniqueness cannot be satisfied.
If I use TreeSet<Team> 2,3 can be achieved. But as there is no get method on TreeSet , a particular team cannot be selected
So I ended up using TreeMap<teamName,Team>. This makes all 1,2,3 possible. But I think it's not the good way to do it
Which Data Structure is ideal for this use case? Preferably form Java collections.
You can utilize your TreeSet if you wish. However, if you're going to utilize the Set interface you can use remove(object o) instead of get. You'll remove the object, make your modifications, then add it back into the set.
I think extending (i.e. creating a subclass from) ArrayList or LinkedList and overriding the set(), add(), addAll(), remove(), and removeRange() methods in such way that they ensure the uniqueness and sortedness conditions (invariants) would be a very clean design. You can also implement a binary search method in your class to quickly find a team with a given name.
ArrayList is a better choice to base your class on, if you aren't going to add or remove teams too frequently. ArrayList would give you O(n) insertion and removal, but O(log n) cost for element access and ensuring uniqueness if you use binary search (where n is the number of elements in the array).
See the generics tutorial for subclassing generics.
How about using a Guava's MultiMap? More precisely, a SetMultimap. Specifically, a SortedSetMultimap. Even more specifically, its TreeMultimap implementation (1).
Explanations:
In a MultiMap, a Key points not to a single value, but rather to a Collection of values.
This means you can bind to a single Team key a collection of several Player values, so that's Req1 solved.
In a SetMultiMap, the Keys are unique.
This gets your Req2 solved.
In a SortedSetMultimap, the Valuess are also sorted.
While you don't specifically care for this, it's nice to have.
In a TreeMultimap, The Keyset and each of their Values collections are Sorted.
This gets your Req3 sorted (See what I did there?)
Usage:
TreeMultimap<Team, Player> ownership = new TreeMultimap<Team, Player>();
ownership.put(team1, playerA);
ownership.put(team1, playerB);
ownership.put(team2, playerC);
Collection<Player> playersOfTeamA = ownership.get(team1); // contains playerA, playerB
SortedSet<Team> allTeams = ownership.keySet(); // contains team1, team2
Gothas:
Remember to set equals and hashCode correctly on your Team object to use its name.
Alternatively, you could use the static create(Comparator<? super K> keyComparator, Comparator<? super V> valueComparator) which provides a purpose-built comparison if you do not wish to change the natural ordering of Team. (use Ordering.natural() for the Player comparator to keep its natural ordering - another nice Guava thing). In any case, make sure it is compatible with equals!
MultiMaps are not Maps because puting a new value to a key does not remove the previously held value (that's the whole point), so make sure you understand it. (for instance it still hold that you cannot put a key-value pair twice...)
(1): I am unsure wether SortedSetMultimap is sufficient. In its Javadoc, it states the Values are sorted, but nothing is said of the keys. Does anyone know any better?
(2) I assure you, I'm not affiliated to Guava in any way. I just find it awesome!
I have a data structure that is of type List<List<CustomObject>>. I want to be able to find the position of a particular CustomObject in my data structure. The output would show me the index for e.g. 1,0 which means the CustomObject is the 0th element in the 1st list item.
I have thought of the following ways to implement this:
Loop through the list one by one and compare the CustomObject. Of course i'll have to implement the equals method in CustomObject to compare.
Use the indexOf method to figure out the first index of the data structure which has the CustomObject. However in this the parameter to equals would be List<CustomObject>.
Are there any other efficient ways to get the index?
Iterate over the main list and call .contains () to check if object is there. If true, use indexOf() to locate it.
You must properly implement equals() and hashcode() in your object .
You can also use .lastIndexOf(Object o) method to get the index of your object directly in one call. This method will give you -1 if that object does not exist in the list.
Check the doc for more detail.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/List.html#lastIndexOf(java.lang.Object)
The only issue is this method will give you only the last occurrence of the object. If you have duplicate objects in the list, this will not work.
Also you must properly implement equals and hashcode method for proper comparison to occur.
indexOf iterates for you, so 1) and 2) are actually the same. And if the element you're looking for is in the last slot of the last list you iterate over the entire dataset.
To get better then that, you'll have to store the index explicitly in a second datastructure that allows for more efficient searching. Taking the winner in the "search" category for datastructures from http://bigocheatsheet.com/ - a HashMap in java - you could do it as follows:
In a HashMap<CustomObject, Index> you store per object the desired index. That also needs to be updated each time you update the list. Both updating and searching for an item requires only constant time, in other words is independent of the amount of elements you have.
With such a map in place, instead of searching through your list, you'll do map.get(customObject) and you'll have the result.
The question for you to answer: can you keep such a datastructure up to date consistently and with less effort than searching in a list. Because if you update your list in a way that affects multiple elements you may loose all benefit due to constantly redoing the entire map.
Besides using multiple datastructures, maybe there is 1 that fits both needs better than a list and a map. But that depends on your data and how you need to access it and which part thereof needs to be optimized.
I have a document with 15,000 items. Each item contains 6 variables (strings and integers). I have to copy all of these into some sort of two dimensional array, what the best way to do it?
Here are my ideas so far:
Make a GIANT 2D array or array list the same way you make any other array.
Pros: Simple Cons: Messy(would create a class just for this), huge amount of code, if I make a mistake it will be imposable to find where it is, all variables would have to be string even the ints which will make my job harder down the road
Make a new class with a super that takes in all the variables I need.
Create each item as a new instance of this class.
Add all of the instances to a 2D array or array list.
Pros: Simple, less messy, easier to find a mistake, not all the variables need to be strings which makes it much easier later when I don't have to convert string to int, a little less typing for me Cons: Slower? Will instances make my array compile slower? And will they make the over all array slow when I'm searching to items in it?
These ideas don't seem all to great :( and before I start the three week, five hour a day process of adding these items I would like to find the best way so I won't have to do it again... Suggestions on my current ideas or any new ideas?
Data example:
0: 100, west, sports, 10.89, MA, united
*not actual data
Your second options seems to be good. You can create a class containing all the items and create an array of that class.
You may use the following:
1. Read the document using buffered reader, so that memory issues will not occur.
2. Create a class containing your items.
3. Create a List of type you need and store the elements into it.
Let me know in case you face further problems.
If you already have the document with the 15000 * 6 items, in my experience you would be better served writing a program to use regex and parse it and have the output be the contents of the java array in the format you want. With such a parsing program in place, it will then also be very easy for you to change the format of the 15000 lines if you want to generate it differently.
As to the final format, I would have an ArrayList of your bean. By you text thus far, you don't necessarily need a super that takes in the variables, unless you need to have subtypes that are differentiated.
You'll probably run out of static space in a single class. So what I do is break up a big class like that into a file with a bunch of inner nested classes that each have a 64K (or less) part of the data as static final arrays, and then I merge them together in the main class in that file.
I have this in a class of many names to fix:
class FixName{
static String[][] testStrings;
static int add(String[][] aTestStrings, int lastIndex){
for(int i=0; i<aTestStrings.length; ++i) {
testStrings[++lastIndex]=aTestStrings[i];
}
return lastIndex;
}
static {
testStrings = new String[
FixName1.testStrings.length
+FixName2.testStrings.length
+FixName3.testStrings.length
+FixName4.testStrings.length
/**/ ][];
int lastIndex=-1;
lastIndex=add(FixName1.testStrings,lastIndex);
lastIndex=add(FixName2.testStrings,lastIndex);
lastIndex=add(FixName3.testStrings,lastIndex);
lastIndex=add(FixName4.testStrings,lastIndex);
/**/ }
}
class FixName1 {
static String[][] testStrings = {
{"key1","name1","other1"},
{"key2","name2","other2"},
//...
{"keyN","nameN","otherN"}
};
}
Create a wrapper (Item) if you have not already(as your question does not state it clearly).
If the size of the elements is fixed ie 1500 use array other wise use LinkedList(write your own linked list or use Collection).
If there are others operations that you need to support on this collection of items, may be further inserts, search( in particular) use balanced binary search tree.
With the understanding of the question i would say linked list is better option.
If the items have a unique property (name or id or row number or any other unique identifier) I recommend using a HashMap with a wrapper around the item. If you are going to do any kind of lookup on your data (find item with id x and do operation y) this is the fastest option and is also very clean, it just requires a wrapper and you can use a datastructure that is already implemented.
If you are not doing any lookups and need to process the items en masse in no specific order I would recommend an ArrayList, it is very optimized as it is the most commonly used collection in java. You would still need the wrapper to keep things clean and a list is far cleaner than an array at almost no extra cost.
Little point in making your own collection as your needs are not extremely specific, just use one that is already implemented and never worry about your code breaking, if it does it is oracles fault ;)
In Java, ArrayList and HashMap are used as collections. But I couldn't understand in which situations we should use ArrayList and which times to use HashMap. What is the major difference between both of them?
You are asking specifically about ArrayList and HashMap, but I think to fully understand what is going on you have to understand the Collections framework. So an ArrayList implements the List interface and a HashMap implements the Map interface. So the real question is when do you want to use a List and when do you want to use a Map. This is where the Java API documentation helps a lot.
List:
An ordered collection (also known as a
sequence). The user of this interface
has precise control over where in the
list each element is inserted. The
user can access elements by their
integer index (position in the list),
and search for elements in the list.
Map:
An object that maps keys to values. A
map cannot contain duplicate keys;
each key can map to at most one value.
So as other answers have discussed, the list interface (ArrayList) is an ordered collection of objects that you access using an index, much like an array (well in the case of ArrayList, as the name suggests, it is just an array in the background, but a lot of the details of dealing with the array are handled for you). You would use an ArrayList when you want to keep things in sorted order (the order they are added, or indeed the position within the list that you specify when you add the object).
A Map on the other hand takes one object and uses that as a key (index) to another object (the value). So lets say you have objects which have unique IDs, and you know you are going to want to access these objects by ID at some point, the Map will make this very easy on you (and quicker/more efficient). The HashMap implementation uses the hash value of the key object to locate where it is stored, so there is no guarentee of the order of the values anymore. There are however other classes in the Java API that can provide this, e.g. LinkedHashMap, which as well as using a hash table to store the key/value pairs, also maintains a List (LinkedList) of the keys in the order they were added, so you can always access the items again in the order they were added (if needed).
If you use an ArrayList, you have to access the elements with an index (int type). With a HashMap, you can access them by an index of another type (for example, a String)
HashMap<String, Book> books = new HashMap<String, Book>();
// String is the type of the index (the key)
// and Book is the type of the elements (the values)
// Like with an arraylist: ArrayList<Book> books = ...;
// Now you have to store the elements with a string key:
books.put("Harry Potter III", new Book("JK Rownling", 456, "Harry Potter"));
// Now you can access the elements by using a String index
Book book = books.get("Harry Potter III");
This is impossible (or much more difficult) with an ArrayList. The only good way to access elements in an ArrayList is by getting the elements by their index-number.
So, this means that with a HashMap you can use every type of key you want.
Another helpful example is in a game: you have a set of images, and you want to flip them. So, you write a image-flip method, and then store the flipped results:
HashMap<BufferedImage, BufferedImage> flipped = new HashMap<BufferedImage, BufferedImage>();
BufferedImage player = ...; // On this image the player walks to the left.
BufferedImage flippedPlayer = flip(player); // On this image the player walks to the right.
flipped.put(player, flippedPlayer);
// Now you can access the flipped instance by doing this:
flipped.get(player);
You flipped player once, and then store it. You can access a BufferedImage with a BufferedImage as key-type for the HashMap.
I hope you understand my second example.
Not really a Java specific question. It seems you need a "primer" on data structures. Try googling "What data structure should you use"
Try this link http://www.devx.com/tips/Tip/14639
From the link :
Following are some tips for matching the most commonly used data structures with particular needs.
When to use a Hashtable?
A hashtable, or similar data structures, are good candidates if the stored data is to be accessed in the form of key-value pairs. For instance, if you were fetching the name of an employee, the result can be returned in the form of a hashtable as a (name, value) pair. However, if you were to return names of multiple employees, returning a hashtable directly would not be a good idea. Remember that the keys have to be unique or your previous value(s) will get overwritten.
When to use a List or Vector?
This is a good option when you desire sequential or even random access. Also, if data size is unknown initially, and/or is going to grow dynamically, it would be appropriate to use a List or Vector. For instance, to store the results of a JDBC ResultSet, you can use the java.util.LinkedList. Whereas, if you are looking for a resizable array, use the java.util.ArrayList class.
When to use Arrays?
Never underestimate arrays. Most of the time, when we have to use a list of objects, we tend to think about using vectors or lists. However, if the size of collection is already known and is not going to change, an array can be considered as the potential data structure. It's faster to access elements of an array than a vector or a list. That's obvious, because all you need is an index. There's no overhead of an additional get method call.
4.Combinations
Sometimes, it may be best to use a combination of the above approaches. For example, you could use a list of hashtables to suit a particular need.
Set Classes
And from JDK 1.2 onwards, you also have set classes like java.util.TreeSet, which is useful for sorted sets that do not have duplicates. One of the best things about these classes is they all abide by certain interface so that you don't really have to worry about the specifics. For e.g., take a look at the following code.
// ...
List list = new ArrayList();
list.add(
Use a list for an ordered collection of just values. For example, you might have a list of files to process.
Use a map for a (usually unordered) mapping from key to value. For example, you might have a map from a user ID to the details of that user, so you can efficiently find the details given just the ID. (You could implement the Map interface by just storing a list of keys and a list of values, but generally there'll be a more efficient implementation - HashMap uses a hash table internally to get amortised O(1) key lookup, for example.)
A Map vs a List.
In a Map, you have key/value pairs. To access a value you need to know the key. There is a relationship that exists between the key and the value that persists and is not arbitrary. They are related somehow. Example: A persons DNA is unique (the key) and a persons name (the value) or a persons SSN (the key) and a persons name (the value) there is a strong relationship.
In a List, all you have are values (a persons name), and to access it you need to know its position in the list (index) to access it. But there is no permanent relationship between the position of the value in the list and its index, it is arbitrary.