Map interface and equals()

The Map interface cannot have duplicate keys and implies that equals is used to determine this.

boolean containsKey(Object key)

Returns true if this map contains a mapping for the specified key. More formally, returns true if and only if this map contains a mapping for a key k such that (key==null ? k==null : key.equals(k)). (There can be at most one such mapping.)

The Maps which support this are
  • HashMap
  • LinkedHashMap
  • ConcurrentHashMap
  • Hashtable
  • WeakHashMap

The Maps which don't use equals() are

  • IndentityHashMap
  • TreeMap
  • ConcurrentSkipListMap
  • EnumMap

All have different reasons as to why they violate the contract but it strikes me as not a great rule that it is as often violated as followed.

Comments

  1. Tomasz Nurkiewicz31 August 2012 at 11:55

    Related StackOverflow question: What does comparison being consistent with equals mean ? What can possibly happen if my class doesn't follow this principle?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ruslan Cheremin31 August 2012 at 14:03

    Trove4J has better design -- it introduces interface THashingStrategy, which takes responsability of equality/hashing for keys. This allows to plug in different strategy of keys comparation. It's a pity JCF authors does not use approach like this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. maaartinus18 October 2012 at 03:57

    I wouldn't say "as often violated as followed.", but it's a funny observation. Those comparison-based Maps may or may not be consistent with equals, it depends on the relation.

    While `EnumMap` doesn't use `equals`, it's AFAIK always consistent with it. Why shouldn't it be? Maybe when you do strange things like creating enum instances reflectively?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why You Should Tune Code Before Your Garbage Collector

Image
Optimising your memory allocations in Java could make far more difference than your choice of Garbage Collector and may even change which is the best garbage collector. In this post I look at a simple event to response latency benchmark, MarketDataSnapshot to NewOrderSingle at 50K/s for 30 minutes using JLBH to test Chronicle-FIX. The goal is to compare a system which is doing redundant work (in this case logging each message using SLF4J), compared with not logging (Chronicle-FIX records every message internally using Chronicle Queue) and how this changes the choice of Garbage Collector For the p99 (worst 1 in 100) the choice of Garbage Collector makes a different on par with optimising how loggin is done However, for the p99.99 (worst 1 in 10,000) optimsing how the logging is done is orders of magnitude more signifciant than the choice of Garbage Collector Unoptimised Benchmark This takes the optimised benchmark and adds one SLF4J log line of just ...
Read more

Asking multiple AI to optimise the same code

As different AIs are implemented differently, they don't all provide the same answer, nor do they consistently outperform one another. The best approach is to use multiple AI and pick the one you like best. My goal here is not to declare a winner based on one example, but instead to show the variety of answers you can get with different AI. I asked each AI to Suggest how to implement this more optimally private static String formatOffset(int millis) { String sign = millis < 0 ? "-" : "+"; int saveSecs = Math.abs(millis) / 1000; int hours = saveSecs / 3600; int mins = ((saveSecs / 60) % 60); int secs = (saveSecs % 60); if (secs == 0) { if (mins == 0) { return sign + twoDigitString(hours); } return sign + twoDigitString(hours) + twoDigitString(mins); } return sign + twoDigitString(hours) + twoDigitString(mins) + twoDigitString(secs); } private static String twoDigitString(int value) { ...
Read more

Which Doc Format is Best for AI Specifications?

I have a Spec Driven Project with 674 documents incl 181 specs, 429 tasks, and 40 project docs. About 1/3 of these are an acceptance sub-project to show the root project meets fit-for-purpose requirements. I used Fable to convert these to and from AsciiDoc, Markdown, and HTML. From this, I tried to draw some conclusions about which format is better than the others for AI specifications. TL;DR: Markdown for AI working documents, AsciiDoc for curated human-reviewed specs, HTML only as a publishing target. Objective Metrics Corpus Tokens (Approx) Markdown: 594k, AsciiDoc: 598K, HTML: 661k Worst Single-File Ratio AsciiDoc: 1.023x, HTML: 1.26x (due to tables and code blocks) Markup share of file content Markdown 0.9%, AsciiDoc 1.3%, HTML 9.9% - a 10x overhead for HTML Read/write Assessment In terms of readability, both Markdown and AsciiDoc are good. HTML has far more tags, which add noise. One of the most common tags is <code> some code </c...
Read more