Among the many reasons to why Strings are immutable, one of the reasons is cited as
String immutability allows hashcode value to be cached.
I did not really understand this. What is meant by caching hashcode values? Where are these values cached? Even if Strings would have been mutable, this cached hashcode value could always be updated as required; so what's the big deal?
What is meant by caching hashcode values? Where are these values cached?
After the hash code is calculated, it is stored in a variable in String.
Looking at the source of String makes this clearer:
public final class String implements ... {
...
/** Cache the hash code for the string */
private int hash; // Default to 0
...
public int hashCode() {
int h = hash;
if (h == 0 && ...) {
...
hash = h;
}
return h;
}
...
}
Even if Strings would have been mutable, this cached hashcode value could always be updated as required
True. But it would have to be recalculated / reset in every modification function. While this is possible, it's not good design.
All in all, the reason probably would've been better if it were as follows:
String immutability makes it easier to cache the hashcode value.
Related
what is the use of private "hash" variable in java.lang.String class. It is private and calculated/re-calculated every time hashcode method is called.
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7u/jdk7u6/jdk/file/8c2c5d63a17e/src/share/classes/java/lang/String.java
It's used to cache the hashCode of the String. Because String is immutable, its hashCode will never change, so attempting to recalculate it after it's already been calculated is pointless.
In the code that you've posted, it's only recalculated when the value of hash is 0, which can either occur if the hashCode hasn't been calculated yet or if the hashCode of the String is actually 0, which is possible!
For example, the hashCode of "aardvark polycyclic bitmap" is 0.
This oversight seems to have been corrected in Java 13 with the introduction of a hashIsZero field:
public int hashCode() {
// The hash or hashIsZero fields are subject to a benign data race,
// making it crucial to ensure that any observable result of the
// calculation in this method stays correct under any possible read of
// these fields. Necessary restrictions to allow this to be correct
// without explicit memory fences or similar concurrency primitives is
// that we can ever only write to one of these two fields for a given
// String instance, and that the computation is idempotent and derived
// from immutable state
int h = hash;
if (h == 0 && !hashIsZero) {
h = isLatin1() ? StringLatin1.hashCode(value)
: StringUTF16.hashCode(value);
if (h == 0) {
hashIsZero = true;
} else {
hash = h;
}
}
return h;
}
Why do we say that immutable objects use lazy hash code initialization? For mutable objects too, we can calculate hashcode only when required right causing lazy initialization?
For mutable classes, it usually doesn't make much sense to store the hashCode, as you'd have to update it every time the object is modified (or at least nullify it so you can recalculate it next time hashCode() is called).
For immutable classes, it makes a lot of sense to store the hash code - once it's calculated, it will never change (since the object is immutable), and there's no need to keep re-calculating every time hashCode() is called. As a further optimization, we can avoid calculating this value until the first time it's needed (i.e., hashCode() is called) - i.e., use lazy initialization.
There's nothing that prohibits you from doing the same on a mutable object, it's just generally not a very good idea.
The advantage of lazy initialization is that hashcode computation is suspended until it is required. Many objects don't need it at all, so you save some computations. Particularly when you have high hash computations. Look at the example below :
class FinalObject {
private final int a, b;
public FinalObject(int value1, int value2) {
a = value1;
b = value2;
}
// not calculated at the beginning - lazy once required
private int hashCode;
#Override
public int hashCode() {
int h = hashCode; // read
if (h == 0) {
h = a + b; // calculation
hashCode = h; // write
}
return h; // return local variable instead of second read
}
}
In Java, obj.hashCode() returns some value. What is the use of this hash code in programming?
hashCode() is used for bucketing in Hash implementations like HashMap, HashTable, HashSet, etc.
The value received from hashCode() is used as the bucket number for storing elements of the set/map. This bucket number is the address of the element inside the set/map.
When you do contains() it will take the hash code of the element, then look for the bucket where hash code points to. If more than 1 element is found in the same bucket (multiple objects can have the same hash code), then it uses the equals() method to evaluate if the objects are equal, and then decide if contains() is true or false, or decide if element could be added in the set or not.
From the Javadoc:
Returns a hash code value for the object. This method is supported for the benefit of hashtables such as those provided by java.util.Hashtable.
The general contract of hashCode is:
Whenever it is invoked on the same object more than once during an execution of a Java 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 execution of an application to another execution of the same application.
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.
It is not required that if two objects are unequal according to the equals(java.lang.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 hashtables.
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 Java programming language.)
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 HashMap, HashTable, HashSet, etc. 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, needs to be solved carefully.
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.
This answer is from the java SE 8 official tutorial documentation
A hashcode is a number generated from any object.
This is what allows objects to be stored/retrieved quickly in a Hashtable.
Imagine the following simple example:
On the table in front of you. you have nine boxes, each marked with a number 1 to 9. You also have a pile of wildly different objects to store in these boxes, but once they are in there you need to be able to find them as quickly as possible.
What you need is a way of instantly deciding which box you have put each object in. It works like an index. you decide to find the cabbage so you look up which box the cabbage is in, then go straight to that box to get it.
Now imagine that you don't want to bother with the index, you want to be able to find out immediately from the object which box it lives in.
In the example, let's use a really simple way of doing this - the number of letters in the name of the object. So the cabbage goes in box 7, the pea goes in box 3, the rocket in box 6, the banjo in box 5 and so on.
What about the rhinoceros, though? It has 10 characters, so we'll change our algorithm a little and "wrap around" so that 10-letter objects go in box 1, 11 letters in box 2 and so on. That should cover any object.
Sometimes a box will have more than one object in it, but if you are looking for a rocket, it's still much quicker to compare a peanut and a rocket, than to check a whole pile of cabbages, peas, banjos, and rhinoceroses.
That's a hash code. A way of getting a number from an object so it can be stored in a Hashtable. In Java, a hash code can be any integer, and each object type is responsible for generating its own. Lookup the "hashCode" method of Object.
Source - here
Although hashcode does nothing with your business logic, we have to take care of it in most cases. Because when your object is put into a hash based container(HashSet, HashMap...), the container puts/gets the element's hashcode.
hashCode() is a unique code which is generated by the JVM for every object creation.
We use hashCode() to perform some operation on hashing related algorithm like Hashtable, Hashmap etc..
The advantages of hashCode() make searching operation easy because when we search for an object that has unique code, it helps to find out that object.
But we can't say hashCode() is the address of an object. It is a unique code generated by JVM for every object.
That is why nowadays hashing algorithm is the most popular search algorithm.
One of the uses of hashCode() is building a Catching mechanism.
Look at this example:
class Point
{
public int x, y;
public Point(int x, int y)
{
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o)
{
if (this == o) return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
Point point = (Point) o;
if (x != point.x) return false;
return y == point.y;
}
#Override
public int hashCode()
{
int result = x;
result = 31 * result + y;
return result;
}
class Line
{
public Point start, end;
public Line(Point start, Point end)
{
this.start = start;
this.end = end;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o)
{
if (this == o) return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
Line line = (Line) o;
if (!start.equals(line.start)) return false;
return end.equals(line.end);
}
#Override
public int hashCode()
{
int result = start.hashCode();
result = 31 * result + end.hashCode();
return result;
}
}
class LineToPointAdapter implements Iterable<Point>
{
private static int count = 0;
private static Map<Integer, List<Point>> cache = new HashMap<>();
private int hash;
public LineToPointAdapter(Line line)
{
hash = line.hashCode();
if (cache.get(hash) != null) return; // we already have it
System.out.println(
String.format("%d: Generating points for line [%d,%d]-[%d,%d] (no caching)",
++count, line.start.x, line.start.y, line.end.x, line.end.y));
}
I know (contract) we need to override hashcode when equals is overridden.
Why should I consider same fields used for equals comparison to compute hashcode?
Is it to improve performance, by avoiding too many objects mapping to same bucket, as in below case?
i.e. all objects created on same "date" would map to same bucket and linear comparison will take time in checking object exists using equals() method?
If my above statement is true, what other potential issues will come with below code other than performance issue. Is that the only reason we should use same fields / members used in equals to compute hashcode? Please share. Thanks.
class MyClass {
int date;
int pay;
int id;
public boolean equals(Object o) {
//null and same class instance check
MyClass obj = (MyClass) o;
return (date == obj.date && pay == obj.pay && id == obj.id);
}
public int hashCode() {
int hash = 7;
return (31 * hash + date);
}
}
//please pardon syntax errors, I typed without using ide.
***my intention is to use all fields in equals, and know why same number of elements should be used in hashcode, and what happens if only few elements are used
Clarification:
With only using "date" to compute hashcode,pointer checks right bucket address (do you agree?) furthermore, I get list of items in that bucket, collection will iterate over to check if particular obj exists using equals. And my definition of equals is "all fields must be same". With this, I believe my code works fine, and I only find performance issue. Please point out where I am wrong. Thank you
For your example, I suggest you use just id for equality and that annotate that they're overrides. Also, I like to override toString()
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (o instanceof MyClass) {
return (id == ((MyClass) o).id);
}
return false;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return id;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return String.format("MyClass (id=%d, date=%d, pay=%d)", id, date, pay);
}
That way you can update the date and/or the pay without having to recreate the hash structure. Also, that's what appears to be unique about instances.
I found the answer in Effective Java, by Joshua Bloch, 2nd edtn, page 49 "Do not be tempted to exclude significant parts of an object from the hash code computation to improve performance" . The poor quality may degrade hash tables' performance.
So my guess was right, multiple hashes will map to same bucket.
Additional information:
http://www.javaranch.com/journal/2002/10/equalhash.html
Since the class members/variables num and data do participate in the
equals method comparison, they should also be involved in the
calculation of the hash code. Though, this is not mandatory. You can
use subset of the variables that participate in the equals method
comparison to improve performance of the hashCode method. Performance
of the hashCode method indeed is very important.
http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=29
Above is the article which i am looking at. Immutable objects greatly simplify your program, since they:
allow hashCode to use lazy initialization, and to cache its return value
Can anyone explain me what the author is trying to say on the above
line.
Is my class immutable if its marked final and its instance variable
still not final and vice-versa my instance variables being final and class being normal.
As explained by others, because the state of the object won't change the hashcode can be calculated only once.
The easy solution is to precalculate it in the constructor and place the result in a final variable (which guarantees thread safety).
If you want to have a lazy calculation (hashcode only calculated if needed) it is a little more tricky if you want to keep the thread safety characteristics of your immutable objects.
The simplest way is to declare a private volatile int hash; and run the calculation if it is 0. You will get laziness except for objects whose hashcode really is 0 (1 in 4 billion if your hash method is well distributed).
Alternatively you could couple it with a volatile boolean but need to be careful about the order in which you update the two variables.
Finally for extra performance, you can use the methodology used by the String class which uses an extra local variable for the calculation, allowing to get rid of the volatile keyword while guaranteeing correctness. This last method is error prone if you don't fully understand why it is done the way it is done...
If your object is immutable it can't change it's state and therefore it's hashcode can't change. That allows you to calculate the value once you need it and to cache the value since it will always stay the same. It's in fact a very bad idea to implement your own hasCode function based on mutable state since e.g. HashMap assumes that the hash can't change and it will break if it does change.
The benefit of lazy initialization is that hashcode calculation is delayed until it is required. Many object don't need it at all so you save some calculations. Especially expensive hash calculations like on long Strings benefit from that.
class FinalObject {
private final int a, b;
public FinalObject(int value1, int value2) {
a = value1;
b = value2;
}
// not calculated at the beginning - lazy once required
private int hashCode;
#Override
public int hashCode() {
int h = hashCode; // read
if (h == 0) {
h = a + b; // calculation
hashCode = h; // write
}
return h; // return local variable instead of second read
}
}
Edit: as pointed out by #assylias, using unsynchronized / non volatile code is only guaranteed to work if there is only 1 read of hashCode because every consecutive read of that field could return 0 even though the first read could already see a different value. Above version fixes the problem.
Edit2: replaced with more obvious version, slightly less code but roughly equivalent in bytecode
public int hashCode() {
int h = hashCode; // only read
return h != 0 ? h : (hashCode = a + b);
// ^- just a (racy) write to hashCode, no read
}
What that line means is, since the object is immutable, then the hashCode has to only be computed once. Further, it doesn't have to be computed when the object is constructed - it only has to be computed when the function is first called. If the object's hashCode is never used then it is never computed. So the hashCode function can look something like this:
#Override public int hashCode(){
synchronized (this) {
if (!this.computedHashCode) {
this.hashCode = expensiveComputation();
this.computedHashCode = true;
}
}
return this.hashCode;
}
And to add to other answers.
Immutable object cannot be changed. The final keyword works for basic data types such as int. But for custom objects it doesn't mean that - it has to be done internally in your implementation:
The following code would result in a compilation error, because you are trying to change a final reference/pointer to an object.
final MyClass m = new MyClass();
m = new MyClass();
However this code would work.
final MyClass m = new MyClass();
m.changeX();