What is the best algorithm for an overridden System.Object.GetHashCode?
In .NET System.Object.GetHashCode method is used in a lot of places, throughout the .NET base class libraries. Especially when finding items in a collection fast or to determine equality. Is there a standard algorithm/ best practice on how to implement the GetHashCode override for my custom classes so I don't degrade performance?
I usually go with something like the implementation given in Josh Bloch's fabulous Effective Java. It's fast and creates a pretty good hash which is unlikely to cause collisions. Pick two different prime numbers, eg 17 and 23, and do:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
unchecked // Overflow is fine, just wrap
{
int hash = 17;
// Suitable nullity checks etc, of course :)
hash = hash * 23 + field1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * 23 + field2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * 23 + field3.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
As noted in comments, you may find it's better to pick a large prime to multiply by instead. Apparently 486187739 is good... and although most examples I've seen with small numbers tend to use primes, there are at least similar algorithms where non-prime numbers are often used. In the not-quite-FNV example later, for example, I've used numbers which apparently work well - but the initial value isn't a prime. (The multiplication constant is prime though. I don't know quite how important that is.)
This is better than the common practice of XOR ing hashcodes for two main reasons. Suppose we have a type with two int fields:
XorHash(x, x) == XorHash(y, y) == 0 for all x, y
XorHash(x, y) == XorHash(y, x) for all x, y
By the way, the earlier algorithm is the one currently used by the C# compiler for anonymous types.
This page gives quite a few options. I think for most cases the above is "good enough" and it's incredibly easy to remember and get right. The FNV alternative is similarly simple, but uses different constants and XOR instead of ADD as a combining operation. It looks something like the code below, but the normal FNV algorithm operates on individual bytes, so this would require modifying to perform one iteration per byte, instead of per 32-bit hash value. FNV is also designed for variable lengths of data, whereas the way we're using it here is always for the same number of field values. Comments on this answer suggest that the code here doesn't actually work as well (in the sample case tested) as the addition approach above.
// Note: Not quite FNV!
public override int GetHashCode()
{
unchecked // Overflow is fine, just wrap
{
int hash = (int) 2166136261;
// Suitable nullity checks etc, of course :)
hash = (hash * 16777619) ^ field1.GetHashCode();
hash = (hash * 16777619) ^ field2.GetHashCode();
hash = (hash * 16777619) ^ field3.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
Note that one thing to be aware of is that ideally you should prevent your equality-sensitive (and thus hashcode-sensitive) state from changing after adding it to a collection that depends on the hash code.
As per the documentation:
You can override GetHashCode for immutable reference types. In general, for mutable reference types, you should override GetHashCode only if:
Microsoft already provides a good generic HashCode generator: Just copy your property/field values to an anonymous type and hash it:
new { PropA, PropB, PropC, PropD }.GetHashCode();
This will work for any number of properties. It does not use boxing or extra resources. It just uses the algorithm already implemented in the framework for anonymous types.
Here is my hashcode helper.
It's advantage is that it uses generic type arguments and therefore will not cause boxing:
public static class HashHelper
{
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2)
{
unchecked
{
return 31 * arg1.GetHashCode() + arg2.GetHashCode();
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = 31 * hash + arg2.GetHashCode();
return 31 * hash + arg3.GetHashCode();
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3,
T4 arg4)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = 31 * hash + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = 31 * hash + arg3.GetHashCode();
return 31 * hash + arg4.GetHashCode();
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T>(T[] list)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = 0;
foreach (var item in list)
{
hash = 31 * hash + item.GetHashCode();
}
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T>(IEnumerable<T> list)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = 0;
foreach (var item in list)
{
hash = 31 * hash + item.GetHashCode();
}
return hash;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Gets a hashcode for a collection for that the order of items
/// does not matter.
/// So {1, 2, 3} and {3, 2, 1} will get same hash code.
/// </summary>
public static int GetHashCodeForOrderNoMatterCollection<T>(
IEnumerable<T> list)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = 0;
int count = 0;
foreach (var item in list)
{
hash += item.GetHashCode();
count++;
}
return 31 * hash + count.GetHashCode();
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Alternative way to get a hashcode is to use a fluent
/// interface like this:<br />
/// return 0.CombineHashCode(field1).CombineHashCode(field2).
/// CombineHashCode(field3);
/// </summary>
public static int CombineHashCode<T>(this int hashCode, T arg)
{
unchecked
{
return 31 * hashCode + arg.GetHashCode();
}
}
Also it has extension method to provide a fluent interface, so you can use it like this:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return HashHelper.GetHashCode(Manufacturer, PartN, Quantity);
}
or like this:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return 0.CombineHashCode(Manufacturer)
.CombineHashCode(PartN)
.CombineHashCode(Quantity);
}
上一篇: 什么是较少知道但有用的数据结构？