We Keep Coding

Should I override hashCode() of Collections?

Given that I some class with various fields in it:
class MyClass {
private String s;
private MySecondClass c;
private Collection<someInterface> coll;
// ...
#Override public int hashCode() {
// ????
}
}
and of that, I do have various objects which I'd like to store in a HashMap. For that, I need to have the hashCode() of MyClass.
I'll have to go into all fields and respective parent classes recursively to make sure they all implement hashCode() properly, because otherwise hashCode() of MyClass might not take into consideration some values. Is this right?
What do I do with that Collection? Can I always rely on its hashCode() method? Will it take into consideration all child values that might exist in my someInterface object?
I OPENED A SECOND QUESTION regarding the actual problem of uniquely IDing an object here: How do I generate an (almost) unique hash ID for objects?
Clarification:
is there anything more or less unqiue in your class? The String s? Then only use that as hashcode.
MyClass hashCode() of two objects should definitely differ, if any of the values in the coll of one of the objects is changed. HashCode should only return the same value if all fields of two objects store the same values, resursively. Basically, there is some time-consuming calculation going on on a MyClass object. I want to spare this time, if the calculation had already been done with the exact same values some time ago. For this purpose, I'd like to look up in a HashMap, if the result is available already.
Would you be using MyClass in a HashMap as the key or as the value? If the key, you have to override both equals() and hashCode()
Thus, I'm using the hashCode OF MyClass as the key in a HashMap. The value (calculation result) will be something different, like an Integer (simplified).
What do you think equality should mean for multiple collections? Should it depend on element ordering? Should it only depend on the absolute elements that are present?
Wouldn't that depend on the kind of Collection that is stored in coll? Though I guess ordering not really important, no
The response you get from this site is gorgeous. Thank you all
#AlexWien that depends on whether that collection's items are part of the class's definition of equivalence or not.
Yes, yes they are.

I'll have to go into all fields and respective parent classes recursively to make sure they all implement hashCode() properly, because otherwise hashCode() of MyClass might not take into consideration some values. Is this right?
That's correct. It's not as onerous as it sounds because the rule of thumb is that you only need to override hashCode() if you override equals(). You don't have to worry about classes that use the default equals(); the default hashCode() will suffice for them.
Also, for your class, you only need to hash the fields that you compare in your equals() method. If one of those fields is a unique identifier, for instance, you could get away with just checking that field in equals() and hashing it in hashCode().
All of this is predicated upon you also overriding equals(). If you haven't overridden that, don't bother with hashCode() either.
What do I do with that Collection? Can I always rely on its hashCode() method? Will it take into consideration all child values that might exist in my someInterface object?
Yes, you can rely on any collection type in the Java standard library to implement hashCode() correctly. And yes, any List or Set will take into account its contents (it will mix together the items' hash codes).

So you want to do a calculation on the contents of your object that will give you a unique key you'll be able to check in a HashMap whether the "heavy" calculation that you don't want to do twice has already been done for a given deep combination of fields.
Using hashCode alone:
I believe hashCode is not the appropriate thing to use in the scenario you are describing.
hashCode should always be used in association with equals(). It's part of its contract, and it's an important part, because hashCode() returns an integer, and although one may try to make hashCode() as well-distributed as possible, it is not going to be unique for every possible object of the same class, except for very specific cases (It's easy for Integer, Byte and Character, for example...).
If you want to see for yourself, try generating strings of up to 4 letters (lower and upper case), and see how many of them have identical hash codes.
HashMap therefore uses both the hashCode() and equals() method when it looks for things in the hash table. There will be elements that have the same hashCode() and you can only tell if it's the same element or not by testing all of them using equals() against your class.
Using hashCode and equals together
In this approach, you use the object itself as the key in the hash map, and give it an appropriate equals method.
To implement the equals method you need to go deeply into all your fields. All of their classes must have equals() that matches what you think of as equal for the sake of your big calculation. Special care needs to be be taken when your objects implement an interface. If the calculation is based on calls to that interface, and different objects that implement the interface return the same value in those calls, then they should implement equals in a way that reflects that.
And their hashCode is supposed to match the equals - when the values are equal, the hashCode must be equal.
You then build your equals and hashCode based on all those items. You may use Objects.equals(Object, Object) and Objects.hashCode( Object...) to save yourself a lot of boilerplate code.
But is this a good approach?
While you can cache the result of hashCode() in the object and re-use it without calculation as long as you don't mutate it, you can't do that for equals. This means that calculation of equals is going to be lengthy.
So depending on how many times the equals() method is going to be called for each object, this is going to be exacerbated.
If, for example, you are going to have 30 objects in the hashMap, but 300,000 objects are going to come along and be compared to them only to realize that they are equal to them, you'll be making 300,000 heavy comparisons.
If you're only going to have very few instances in which an object is going to have the same hashCode or fall in the same bucket in the HashMap, requiring comparison, then going the equals() way may work well.
If you decide to go this way, you'll need to remember:
If the object is a key in a HashMap, it should not be mutated as long as it's there. If you need to mutate it, you may need to make a deep copy of it and keep the copy in the hash map. Deep copying again requires consideration of all the objects and interfaces inside to see if they are copyable at all.
Creating a unique key for each object
Back to your original idea, we have established that hashCode is not a good candidate for a key in a hash map. A better candidate for that would be a hash function such as md5 or sha1 (or more advanced hashes, like sha256, but you don't need cryptographic strength in your case), where collisions are a lot rarer than a mere int. You could take all the values in your class, transform them into a byte array, hash it with such a hash function, and take its hexadecimal string value as your map key.
Naturally, this is not a trivial calculation. So you need to think if it's really saving you much time over the calculation you are trying to avoid. It is probably going to be faster than repeatedly calling equals() to compare objects, as you do it only once per instance, with the values it had at the time of the "big calculation".
For a given instance, you could cache the result and not calculate it again unless you mutate the object. Or you could just calculate it again only just before doing the "big calculation".
However, you'll need the "cooperation" of all the objects you have inside your class. That is, they will all need to be reasonably convertible into a byte array in such a way that two equivalent objects produce the same bytes (including the same issue with the interface objects that I mentioned above).
You should also beware of situations in which you have, for example, two strings "AB" and "CD" which will give you the same result as "A" and "BCD", and then you'll end up with the same hash for two different objects.

For future readers.
Yes, equals and hashCode go hand in hand.
Below shows a typical implementation using a helper library, but it really shows the "hand in hand" nature. And the helper library from apache keeps things simpler IMHO:
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) {
return true;
}
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) {
return false;
}
MyCustomObject castInput = (MyCustomObject) o;
boolean returnValue = new org.apache.commons.lang3.builder.EqualsBuilder()
.append(this.getPropertyOne(), castInput.getPropertyOne())
.append(this.getPropertyTwo(), castInput.getPropertyTwo())
.append(this.getPropertyThree(), castInput.getPropertyThree())
.append(this.getPropertyN(), castInput.getPropertyN())
.isEquals();
return returnValue;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return new org.apache.commons.lang3.builder.HashCodeBuilder(17, 37)
.append(this.getPropertyOne())
.append(this.getPropertyTwo())
.append(this.getPropertyThree())
.append(this.getPropertyN())
.toHashCode();
}
17, 37 .. those you can pick your own values.

From your clarifications:
You want to store MyClass in an HashMap as key.
This means the hashCode() is not allowed to change after adding the object.
So if your collections may change after object instantiation, they should not be part of the hashcode().
From http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/Map.html
Note: great care must be exercised if mutable objects are used as map
keys. The behavior of a map is not specified if the value of an object
is changed in a manner that affects equals comparisons while the
object is a key in the map.
For 20-100 objects it is not worth that you enter the risk of an inconsistent hash() or equals() implementation.
There is no need to override hahsCode() and equals() in your case.
If you don't overide it, java takes the unique object identity for equals and hashcode() (and that works, epsecially because you stated that you don't need an equals() considering the values of the object fields).
When using the default implementation, you are on the safe side.
Making an error like using a custom hashcode() as key in the HashMap when the hashcode changes after insertion, because you used the hashcode() of the collections as part of your object hashcode may result in an extremly hard to find bug.
If you need to find out whether the heavy calculation is finished, I would not absue equals(). Just write an own method objectStateValue() and call hashcode() on the collection, too. This then does not interfere with the objects hashcode and equals().
public int objectStateValue() {
// TODO make sure the fields are not null;
return 31 * s.hashCode() + coll.hashCode();
}
Another simpler possibility: The code that does the time consuming calculation can raise an calculationCounter by one as soon as the calculation is ready. You then just check whether or not the counter has changed. this is much cheaper and simpler.

Java Overriding hashCode() method has any Performance issue?

If i will override hashCode() method will it degrade the performance of application. I am overriding this method in many places in my application.

Yes you can degrade the performance of a hashed collection if the hashCode method is implemented in a bad way. The best implementation of a hashCode method should generate the unique hashCode for unique objects. Unique hashCode will avoid collisions and an element can be stored and retrieved with O(1) complexity. But only hashCode method will not be able to do it, you need to override the equals method also to help the JVM.
If the hashCode method is not able to generate unique hash for unique objects then there is a chance that you will be holding more than one objects at a bucket. This will occur when you have two elements with same hash but equals method returns false for them. So each time this happens the element will be added to the list at hash bucket. This will slow down both the insertion and retreival of elements. It will lead to O(n) complexity for the get method, where n is the size of the list at a bucket.
Note: While you try to generate unique hash for unique objects in your hashCode implementation, be sure that you write simple algorithm for doing so. If your algorithm for generating the hash is too heavy then you will surely see a poor performance for operations on your hashed collection. As hashCode method is called for most of the operations on the hashed collection.

It would improve performance if the right data structure used at right place,
For example: a proper hashcode implementation in Object can nearly convert O(N) to O(1) for HashMap lookup
unless you are doing too much complicated operation in hashCode() method
It would invoke hashCode() method every time it has to deal with Hash data structure with your Object and if you have heavy hashCode() method (which shouldn't be)

It depends entirely on how you're implementing hashCode. If you're doing lots of expensive deep operations, then perhaps it might, and in that case, you should consider caching a copy of the hashCode (like String does). But a decent implementation, such as with HashCodeBuilder, won't be a big deal. Having a good hashCode value can make lookups in data structures like HashMaps and HashSets much, much faster, and if you override equals, you need to override hashCode.

Java's hashCode() is a virtual function anyway, so there is no performance loss by the sheer fact that it is overridden and the overridden method is used.
The real difference may be the implementation of the method. By default, hashCode() works like this (source):
As much as is reasonably practical, the hashCode method defined by
class Object does return distinct integers for distinct objects. (This
is typically implemented by converting the internal address of the
object into an integer, but this implementation technique is not
required by the JavaTM programming language.)
So, whenever your implementation is as simple as this, there will be no performance loss. However, if you perform complex computing operations based on many fields, calling many other functions - you will notice a performance loss but only because your hashCode() does more things.
There is also the issue of inefficient hashCode() implementations. For example, if your hashCode() simply returns value 1 then the use of HashMap or HashSet will be significantly slower than with proper implementation. There is a great question which covers the topic of implementing hashCode() and equals() on SO: What issues should be considered when overriding equals and hashCode in Java?
One more note: remember, that whenever you implement hashCode() you should also implement equals(). Moreover, you should do it with care, because if you write an invalid hashCode() you may break equality checks for various collections.

Overriding hashCode() in a class in itself does not cause any performance issues. However when an instance of such class is inserted either into a HashMap HashSet or equivalent data structure hashCode() & optionally equals() method is invoked to identify right bucket to put the element in. same applicable to Retrival Search & Deletion.
As posted by others performance totally depends on how hashCode() is implemented.
However If a particular class's equals method is not used at all then it is not mandatory to override equals() and hashCode() , but if equals() is overridden , hashcode() must be overridden as well

As all previous comments mentioned, hash-code is used for hashing in collections or it could be used as negative condition in equals. So, yes you can slow you app a lot. Obviously there is more use-cases.
First of all I would say that the approach (whether to rewrite it at all) depends on the type of objects you are talking about.
Default implementation of hash-code is fast as possible because it's unique for every object. It's possible to be enough for many cases.
This is not good when you want to use hashset and let say want to do not store two same objects in a collection. Now, the point is in "same" word.
"Same" can mean "same instance". "Same" can mean object with same (database) identifier when your object is entity or "same" can mean the object with all equal properties. It seems that it can affect performance so far.
But one of properties can be a object which could evaluate hashCode() on demand too and right now you can get evaluation of object tree's hash-code always when you call hash-code method on the root object.
So, what I would recommend? You need to define and clarify what you want to do. Do you really need to distinguish different object instances, or identifier is crucial, or is it value object?
It also depends on immutability. It's possible to calculate hashcode value once when object is constructed using all constructor properties (which has only get) and use it always when hashcode() is call. Or another option is to calculate hashcode always when any property gets change. You need to decide whether most cases read the value or write it.
The last thing I would say is to override hashCode() method only when you know that you need it and when you know what are you doing.

If you will override hashCode() method will it degrade the performance of application.It would improve performance if the right data structure used at right place,
For example: a proper hashcode() implementation in Object can nearly convert O(N) to O(1) for HashMap lookup.unless you are doing too much complicated operation in hashCode() method

The main purpose of hashCode method is to allow an object to be a key in the hash map or a member of a hash set. In this case an object should also implement equals(Object) method, which is consistent with hashCode implementation:
If a.equals(b) then a.hashCode() == b.hashCode()
If hashCode() was called twice on the same object, it should return the same result provided that the object was not changed
hashCode from the performance point of view
From the performance point of view, the main objective for your hashCode method implementation is to minimize the number of objects sharing the same hash code.
All JDK hash based collections store their values in an array.
Hash code is used to calculate an initial lookup position in this array. After that equals is used to compare given value with values stored in the internal array. So, if all values have distinct hash codes, this will minimize the possibility of hash collisions.
On the other hand, if all values will have the same hash code, hash map (or set) will degrade into a list with operations on it having O(n2) complexity.
From Java 8 onwards though collision will not impact performance as much as it does in earlier versions because after a threshold the linked list will be replaced by the binary tree, which will give you O(logN) performance in the worst case as compared to O(n) of linked list.
Never write a hashCode method which returns a constant.
String.hashCode results distribution is nearly perfect, so you can sometimes substitute Strings with their hash codes.
The next objective is to check how many identifiers with non-unique has codes you still have. Improve your hashCode method or increase a range of allowed hash code values if you have too many of non-unique hash codes. In the perfect case all your identifiers will have unique hash codes.

hashCode() purpose in Java

I read in a book that hashCode() shows a memory area which helps (e.g. HashSets) to locate appropriate objects in memory. But how can that be true if we cannot manipulate memory in Java directly? There are no pointers, in addition to it objects are created and moved from one place to another and the developer doesn't know about it.
I read that realization like hashCode() {return 42;} is awful and terrible, but what's the difference if we can't instruct VM where to put our objects?
The question is: what is the purpose of hashCode() on deep level if we can't manipulate memory?

I read in a book that hashCode() shows a memory area which helps (e.g. HashSets) to locate appropriate objects in memory.
No, that's a completely bogus description of the purpose of hashCode. It's used to find potentially equal objects in an efficient manner. It's got nothing to do with the location of the object in memory.
The idea is that if you've got something like a HashMap, you want to find a matching key quickly when you do a lookup. So you first check the requested key's hash code, and then you can really efficiently find all the keys in your map with that hash code. You can then check each of those (and only those) candidate keys for equality against the requested key.
See the Wikipedia article on hash tables for more information.

I like Jon Skeet's answer (+1) but it requires knowing how hash tables work. A hash table is a data structure, basically an array of buckets, that uses the hashcode of the key to decide which bucket to stick that entry in. That way future calls to retrieve whatever's at that key don't have to sift through the whole list of things stored in the hashtable, the hashtable can calculate the hashcode for the key, then go straight to the matching bucket and look there. The hashcode has to be something that can be calculated quickly, and you'd rather it was unique but if it isn't it's not a disaster, except in the worst case (your return 42;), which is bad because everything ends up in the same bucket and you're back to sifting through everything.
The default value for Object#hashCode may be based on something like a memory location just because it's a convenient sort-of-random number, but as the object is shunted around during memory management that value is cached and nobody cares anyway. The hashcodes created by different objects, like String or BigDecimal, certainly have nothing to do with memory. It's just a number that is quickly generated and that you hope is unique more often than not.

A hash code is a just a "value". It has nothing more to do with "where you put it in memory" than "MyClass obj = new MyClass()" has to do with where "obj" is placed in memory.
So what is a Java hashCode() all about?
Here is a good discussion on the subject:
http://www.coderanch.com/t/269570/java-programmer-SCJP/certification/discuss-hashcode-contract
K&B says that the hashcode() contract are :
If two objects are equal according to the equals(Object) method, then calling the hashCode() method on each of the two objects must
produce the same integer result.
If two objects are unequal according to the equals(Object) method, there's no requirement about hashcode().
If calling hashcode() on two objects produce different integer result, then both of them must be unequal according to the
equals(Object).

A hashcode is a function that takes an object and outputs a numeric value. The hashcode for an object is always the same if the object doesn't change.
Functions like hashmaps that need to store objects, will use a hashcode modulo the size of their internal array to choose in what "memory position" (i.e. array position) to store the object.
There are some cases where collisions may occur (two objects end up with the same hashcode, and that, of course, need to be solved carefully). For the details, I would suggest a read of the wikipedia hashmap entry

HashCode is a encryption of an object and with that encryption java knows if the two of the objects for example in collections are the same or different . (SortedSet for an example)
I would recommend you read this article.

Yes, it has got nothing to do with the memory address, though it's typically implemented by converting the internal address of the object. The following statement found in the Object's hashCode() method makes it clear that the implementation is not forced to do it.
As much as is reasonably practical, the hashCode method defined by
class Object does return distinct integers for distinct objects. (This
is typically implemented by converting the internal address of the
object into an integer, but this implementation technique is not
required by the JavaTM programming language.

The hashCode() function takes an object and outputs a numeric value, which doesn't have to be unique. The hashcode for an object is always the same if the object doesn't change.
The value returned by hashCode() is the object's hash code, which is the object's memory address in hexadecimal.
By definition, if two objects are equal, their hash code must also be equal. If you override the equals() method, you change the way two objects are equated and Object's implementation of hashCode() is no longer valid. Therefore, if you override the equals() method, you must also override the hashCode() method as well.
For more, check out this Java hashcode article.

Why did java designers impose a mandate that if obj1.equals(obj2) then obj1.hashCode() MUST Be == obj2.hashCode()

Why did java designers impose a mandate that
if obj1.equals(obj2) then
obj1.hashCode() MUST Be == obj2.hashCode()

Because a HashMap uses the following algorithm to find keys quickly:
get the hashCode() of the key in argument
deduce the bucket from this hash code
compare every key in the bucket with the key in argument (using equals()) to find the right one
If two equal objects didn't have the same hash code, the first two steps of the algorithm wouldn't work. And it's those two first steps that make a HashMap very fast (O(1)).

There is no mandate. It is a good practice since this is a required condition if your objects are meant to be used in hash based data structures like HashMap/HashSet etc.

As far as I know that's not baked into the language - you could technically have objects whose equals() method does not check the hashcode but you'll get pretty peculiar results.
In particular if you put a bunch of these objects into a HashMap or HashSet the map/set will use the hashCode() method to determine whether the objects may be duplicates - so you can have a situation where a collection will store 2 objects you've defined as equals (which should never happen) because they're each returning different hashCodes.

Because hashcodes are used to quickly determine if two objects are not equal.

Its sort of two steps matching to improve performance.
First Step: calculate hashcode()
Second Step: calculate equals()
Its because if you put your objects as keys in collections like hashmap, your keys will be compared first on hashcode() method if it finds matching hashcode it then goes on further to calculate equals().
Its like indexing for better search performance

Why both hashCode() and equals() exist

why java Object class has two methods hashcode() and equals()? One of them looks redundant and its percolated to the bottom most derived class?

Why do you think one is redundant? They say different things:
hashCode is "give me some way of efficiently seeing whether two objects are likely to be equal"
equals is "check whether this object is genuinely equal to another"
You definitely need both - although I don't believe they should really be in Object in the first place.
You absolutely need hash codes in order to perform efficient lookups with hash tables - and you absolutely need further equality checks because hashes will collide (there are far more possible strings than hash codes, for example).

First of all, when you override equals() you MUST override hashcode() as well.
Failure to do so
will result in a violation of the general contract for Object.hashCode, which will
prevent your class from functioning properly in conjunction with all hash-based
collections, including HashMap, HashSet, and Hashtable.
Here is the contract, copied from the Object specification [JavaSE6]:
Whenever it is invoked on the same object more than once during an execu-
tion of an application, the hashCode method must consistently return the
same integer, provided no information used in equals comparisons on the
object is modified. This integer need not remain consistent from one execu-
tion of an application to another execution of the same application.
If two objects are equal according to the equals(Object) method, then call-
ing the hashCode method on each of the two objects must produce the same
integer result.
It is not required that if two objects are unequal according to the equals(Object) method, then calling the hashCode method on each of the two objects
must produce distinct integer results. However, the programmer should be
aware that producing distinct integer results for unequal objects may improve
the performance of hash tables.

The fundamental idea is that by comparing hashcode()s it's quick to check whether two objects are probably equal. If their hashcodes are equal, then the objects probably are equal (not necessarily, but it's a good guess). Then a more profound (and more expensive) check with equals() is performed. This is important to speed up all kind of look-ups (from maps etc).

equals is to compare objects, hashcode is used to generate a hash value from an object, which will then be used by the java map containers (Hashtable, Map etc).
it's common practice to override them together (if you override hashcode, you need to override equals and vice versa).