I have a class Attribute which has 2 variables say int a,b;
I want to use class Attribute in two different HashSet.
The first hash set considers objects as equal when the value of a is same.
But the second hash set considers objects as equal when the value of b is same.
I know if I override the equals method the hashset will use the overriden version of equals to compare two objects but in this case I would need two different implementations of equals()
One way is to create two subclasses of attribute and provide them with different equals method but I want to know if there is a better way to do it such that I dont have to create subclass of Attribute.
Thanks.
One possible solution is to not use HashSet, but use TreeSet instead. It's the same Set interface, but there is a TreeSet constructor that lets you pass in a Comparator. That way you could leave the Attribute class unchanged- just create two different comparators and use it like
Set<Attribute> setA = new TreeSet<Attribute>(comparatorForA);
Set<Attribute> setB = new TreeSet<Attribute>(comparatorForB);
The comparator takes care of the equality check (e.g. if compare returns 0, the objects are equal)
Unfortunately there's no "Equalizer" class that can override the equals logic. There is such a thing for sorting, where you can either use natural sorting based on the Comparable implementation or provide your own Comparator. I've actually wondered why there's no such thing for equality checks.
Since the semantics of equality are defined by a class and could be considered a trait of that class, the two subclasses approach seems the most natural. Maybe someone knows a useful pattern for doing this in a more simple manner, but I've never encountered it.
EDIT: just thought of something... you could use two Map instances, like HashMap, with the first one using a as key and the second using b as key. It'd let you detect collisions. You could then simply link the attribute to the associated instance.
I did some thing different, Instead of using the HashSet, I have used HashMap where I have used int a as a key in first HashMap and the object is stored as value.
And in the other HashMap I have kept the key as int b and the object as value.
This provides me a way to Hash on both the variables a and b so I dont have to make any sub classes.
And also, I get O(1) time instead of O(log n). But I know I am paying the price by using some more memory but my main concern was time so I chose HashMap over TreeSet.
Thank you all for your comments and suggestions.
It would be very easy to modify HashMap and HashSet to accept hashing and equality-testing strategies.
public interface Hasher {
int hashCode(Object o);
}
public interface Equalizer {
int areEqual(Object o1, Object o2);
}
A simple solution is to bypass HashSet and use HashMap directly. For the first, store each Attribute using its a property as the key, and for the other use b.
I can propose a bit hacky but lesser effort solution :)
Swap the values of a and b when storing in second hashset so that uniqueness is defined by value of b and then when reading the class from hashset then swap the value of a and b again to retain the original state. So the same equals/hascode methods will serve the purpose.
Related
How, do you think, can we merge two List implementations, say ArrayList(s), without having to implement the object type as Comparable, or overriding .equals() method anyways. Basically, no change to that class is allowed.
Now, the object has 4 attributes - code, name, (boolean), (float). Name cannot be used as the basis of comparison, and it is not necessary that code will always be a non-null value. Basically, either code is not null, or the boolean is set to true.
Now, if the two elements in the list are conflicting, then their (float) values need to be added up.
How can we perform this merge in most optimized way?
Its not that we can't use name as the unique identifier for each object, but issue is the names are too long which means string comparison will also be costly !
If you cannot change the class to implement Comparable, you can still use external Comparator objects.
I'm using a TreeMap (SortedMap) whose keys are Object[] with elements of varying types.
TreeMap's equals() doesn't work on Object[] like Arrays's equals() would do -- which means it won't work when using its methods like containsKey() and get() unless I workaround it.
Is there somewhere a solution for this that doesn't involve creating a whole new Class?
EDIT :
Just to make it clear, I made a mistaken assumption. Creating a new Comparator(){} also does affect every method that uses equality, such as equals(), not only the tree sorter.
Is there somewhere a solution for this that doesn't involve creating a whole new Class?
No. In fact, you shouldn't be using mutable values for map keys at all.
While I agree with Matt Ball that you generally shouldn't use mutable (changeable) types as your keys, it is possible to use a TreeMap in this manner as long as you are not planning on modifying the arrays once they are in the tree.
This solution does involve the creation of a class, but not a new Map class, which is what it seems you are asking. Instead, you would need to create your own class which implements Comparator<Object[]> that can compare arrays. The class could use the Arrays.equals() method to determine if they are equal, but would need to also have a consistent rule to determine which array comes before another array when the arrays are not equal.
hi
I want to create a HashMap (java) that stores Expression, a little object i've created.
How do I choose what type of key to use? What's the difference for me between integer and String? I guess i just don't fully understand the idea behind HashMap so i'm not sure what keys to use.
Thanks!
Java HashMap relies on two things:
the hashCode() method, which returns an integer that is generated from the key and used inside the map
the equals(..) method, which should be consistent to the hash calculated, this means that if two keys has the same hashcode than it is desiderable that they are the same element.
The specific requirements, taken from Java API doc are the following:
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.
If you don't provide any kind of specific implementation, then the memory reference of the object is used as the hashcode. This is usually good in most situations but if you have for example:
Expression e1 = new Expression(2,4,PLUS);
Expression e2 = new Expression(2,4,PLUS);
(I don't actually know what you need to place inside your hashmap so I'm just guessing)
Then, since they are two different object although with same parameters, they will have different hashcodes. This could be or not be a problem for your specific situation.
In case it isn't just use the hasmap without caring about these details, if it is you will need to provide a better way to compute the hashcode and equality of your Expression class.
You could do it in a recursive way (by computing the hashcode as a result of the hashcodes of children) or in a naive way (maybe computing the hashcode over a toString() representation).
Finally, if you are planning to use just simple types as keys (like you said integers or strings) just don't worry, there's no difference. In both cases two different items will have the same hashcode. Some examples:
assert(new String("hello").hashCode() == new String("hello").hashCode());
int x = 123;
assert(new Integer(x).hashCode() == new Integer(123).hashCode());
Mind that the example with strings is not true in general, like I explained you before, it is just because the hashcode method of strings computes the value according to the content of the string itself.
The key is what you use to identify objects. You might have a situation where you want to identify numbers by their name.
Map<String,Integer> numbersByName = new HashMap<String,Integer>();
numbersByName.put("one",Integer.valueOf(1));
numbersByName.put("two",Integer.valueOf(2));
numbersByName.put("three",Integer.valueOf(3));
... etc
Then later you can get them out by doing
Integer three = numbersByName.get("three");
Or you might have a need to go the other way. If you know you're going to have integer values, and want the names, you can map integers to strings
Map<String,Integer> numbersByValue = new HashMap<String,Integer>();
numbersByValue.put(Integer.valueOf(1),"one");
numbersByValue.put(Integer.valueOf(2),"two");
numbersByValue.put(Integer.valueOf(3),"three");
... etc
And get it out
String three = numbersByValue.get(Integer.valueOf(3));
Keys and their associated values are both objects. When you get something from a HashMap, you have to cast it to the actual type of object it represents (we can do this because all objects in Java inherit the Object class). So, if your keys are strings and your values are Integers, you would do something like:
Integer myValue = (Integer)myMap.get("myKey");
However, you can use Java generics to tell the compiler that you're only going to be using Strings and Integers:
HashMap<String,Integer> myMap = new HashMap<String,Integer>();
See http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/HashMap.html for more details on HashMap.
If you do not want to look up the expressions, why do you want them to store in a map?
But if you want to, then the key is that item you use for lookup.
I have a List which contains a list of objects and I want to remove from this list all the elements which have the same values in two of their attributes. I had though about doing something like this:
List<Class1> myList;
....
Set<Class1> mySet = new HashSet<Class1>();
mySet.addAll(myList);
and overriding hash method in Class1 so it returns a number which depends only in the attributes I want to consider.
The problem is that I need to do a different filtering in another part of the application so I can't override hash method in this way (I would need two different hash methods).
What's the most efficient way of doing this filtering without overriding hash method?
Thanks
Overriding hashCode and equals in Class1 (just to do this) is problematic. You end up with your class having an unnatural definition of equality, which may turn out to be other for other current and future uses of the class.
Review the Comparator interface and write a Comparator<Class1> implementation to compare instances of your Class1 based on your criteria; e.g. based on those two attributes. Then instantiate a TreeSet<Class>` for duplicate detection using the TreeSet(Comparator) constructor.
EDIT
Comparing this approach with #Tom Hawtin's approach:
The two approaches use roughly comparable space overall. The treeset's internal nodes roughly balance the hashset's array and the wrappers that support the custom equals / hash methods.
The wrapper + hashset approach is O(N) in time (assuming good hashing) versus O(NlogN) for the treeset approach. So that is the way to go if the input list is likely to be large.
The treeset approach wins in terms of the lines of code that need to be written.
Let your Class1 implements Comparable. Then use TreeSet as in your example (i.e. use addAll method).
As an alternative to what Roman said you can have a look at this SO question about filtering using Predicates. If you use Google Collections anyway this might be a good fit.
I would suggest introducing a class for the concept of the parts of Class1 that you want to consider significant in this context. Then use a HashSet or HashMap.
Sometimes programmers make things too complicated trying to use all the nice features of a language, and the answers to this question are an example. Overriding anything on the class is overkill. What you need is this:
class MyClass {
Object attr1;
Object attr2;
}
List<Class1> list;
Set<Class1> set=....
Set<MyClass> tempset = new HashSet<MyClass>;
for (Class1 c:list) {
MyClass myc = new MyClass();
myc.attr1 = c.attr1;
myc.attr2 = c.attr2;
if (!tempset.contains(myc)) {
tempset.add(myc);
set.add(c);
}
}
Feel free to fix up minor irregulairites. There will be some issues depending on what you mean by equality for the attributes (and obvious changes if the attributes are primitive). Sometimes we need to write code, not just use the builtin libraries.
Is it possible to allow duplicate values in the Set collection?
Is there any way to make the elements unique and have some copies of them?
Is there any functions for Set collection for having duplicate values in it?
Ever considered using a java.util.List instead?
Otherwise I would recommend a Multiset from Google Guava (the successor to Google Collections, which this answer originally recommended -ed.).
The very definition of a Set disallows duplicates. I think perhaps you want to use another data structure, like a List, which will allow dups.
Is there any way to make the elements unique and have some copies of them?
If for some reason you really do need to store duplicates in a set, you'll either need to wrap them in some kind of holder object, or else override equals() and hashCode() of your model objects so that they do not evaluate as equivalent (and even that will fail if you are trying to store references to the same physical object multiple times).
I think you need to re-evaluate what you are trying to accomplish here, or at least explain it more clearly to us.
From the javadocs:
"sets contain no pair of elements e1
and e2 such that e1.equals(e2), and at
most one null element"
So if your objects were to override .equals() so that it would return different values for whatever objects you intend on storing, then you could store them separately in a Set (you should also override hashcode() as well).
However, the very definition of a Set in Java is,
"A collection that contains no
duplicate elements. "
So you're really better off using a List or something else here. Perhaps a Map, if you'd like to store duplicate values based on different keys.
Sun's view on "bags" (AKA multisets):
We are extremely sympathetic to the desire for type-safe collections. Rather than adding a "band-aid" to the framework that enforces type-safety in an ad hoc fashion, the framework has been designed to mesh with all of the parameterized-types proposals currently being discussed. In the event that parameterized types are added to the language, the entire collections framework will support compile-time type-safe usage, with no need for explicit casts. Unfortunately, this won't happen in the the 1.2 release. In the meantime, people who desire runtime type safety can implement their own gating functions in "wrapper" collections surrounding JDK collections.
(source; note it is old and possibly obsolete -ed.)
Apart from Google's collections API, you can use Apache Commons Collections.
Apache Commons Collections:
http://commons.apache.org/collections/
Javadoc for Bag
I don't believe that you can have duplicate values within a set. A set is defined as a collection of unique values. You may be better off using an ArrayList.
These sound like interview questions, so I'll answer them like interview questions...
Is it possible to allow duplicate values in the Set collection?
Yes, but it requires that the person implementing the Set violate the design contract upon which Set is built. Basically, I could write a class that extends Set and doesn't enforce Set's promises.
In addition, other violations are possible. I could use a Set implementation that relies upon Java's hashCode() contract. Then if I provided an Object that violates Java's hashcode contract, I might be able to place two objects into the set which are equal, but yeild different hashcodes (because they might not be checked in equality against each other due to being in different hash bucket chains.
Is there any way to make the elements unique and have some copies of them?
It basically depends on how you define uniqueness. If an object's uniqueness is determined by its value, then one can have multiple copies of the same unique object; however, if the object's uniqueness is determined by its instance, then by definition it would not be possible to have multiple copies of the same object. You could however have multiple references to them.
Is there any functions for Set collection for having duplicate values in it?
The Set interface doesn't have any functions for detecting / reporting duplicates; however, it is based on the Collections interface, which has to support the List interface, so it is possible to pass duplicates into a Set; however, a properly implemented Set will just ignore the duplicates, and present one copy of every element determined to be unique.
I don't think so. The only way would be to use a List. You can also trick with function equals(), hashcode() or compareTo() but it is going to be ankward.
NO chance.... you can not have duplicate values in SET interface...
If you want duplicates then you can try Array-List
As mentioned choose the right collection for the task and likely a List will be what you need. Messing with the equals(), hashcode() or compareTo() to break identity is generally a bad idea simply to wedge an instance into the wrong collection to start with. Worse yet it may break code in other areas of the application that depend on these methods producing valid comparison results and be very difficult to debug or track down such errors.
This question was asked to me also in an interview. I think the answer is, ofcourse Set will not allow duplicate elements and instead ArrayList or other collections should be used for the same, however overriding equals() for the type of the object being stored in the set will allow you to manipulate on the comparison logic. And hence you may be able to store duplicate elements in the Set. Its more of a hack, which would allow non-unique elements in the Set and ofcourse is not recommended in production level code.
You can do so by overriding hashcode as given below:
public class Test
{
static int a=0;
#Override
public int hashCode()
{
a++;
return a;
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Set<Test> s=new HashSet<Test>();
Test t1=new Test();
Test t2=t1;
s.add(t1);
s.add(t2);
System.out.println(s);
System.out.println("--Done--");
}
}
Well, In this case we are trying to break the purpose of specific collection. If we want to allow duplicate records simply use list or multimap.
Set will store unique values and if you wants to store duplicate values then for list,but still if you want duplicate values in set then create set of ArrayList so that you can put duplicate elements into it.
Set<ArrayList> s = new HashSet<ArrayList>();
ArrayList<String> arr = new ArrayList<String>();
arr.add("First");
arr.add("Second");
arr.add("Third");
arr.add("Fourth");
arr.add("First");
s.add(arr);
You can use Tree Map instead :
Key can be used as element you wish to store
and Value will be the frequency of input element.
The insertion and removal will require custom handling.
Insertion : Check if the map already contains the element , if yes then increment its frequency. O(log N)
Removal : if the element's frequency is 1 then remove it , else decrease frequency by 1. O(log N)
More details can be found in the java docs of tree map
Overall time complexity will remain same as TreeSet O(log N) but worse than a HashSet O(1)
firstEntry() -> provides smallest element entry, Time Complexity : O(Log N)
lastEntry() -> provides greatest element entry, Time Complexity : O(Log N)
public class SET {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Set set=new HashSet();
set.add(new AB(10, "pawan#email"));
set.add(new AB(10, "pawan#email"));
set.add(new AB(10, "pawan#email"));
Iterator it=set.iterator();
while(it.hasNext()){
Object o=it.next();
System.out.println(o);
}
}
}
public class AB{
int id;
String email;
public AB() {
System.out.println("DC");
}
AB(int id,String email){
this.id=id;
this.email=email;
}
#Override public String toString() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub return ""+id+"\t"+email;}
}
}