Quel est le meilleur algorithme pour un System.Object.GetHashCode substitué?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/263400
-
06-07-2019 - |
italiano
english
français
española
中国
日本の
العربية
Deutsch
한국어
Português
RussianQuestion
Dans .NET System.Object.GetHashCode la méthode est utilisée à de nombreux endroits, dans les bibliothèques de classes de base .NET. Surtout lors de la recherche rapide d'éléments dans une collection ou pour déterminer l'égalité. Existe-t-il un algorithme standard / une meilleure pratique pour implémenter le GetHashCode remplacement pour mes classes personnalisées afin de ne pas dégrader les performances?
La solution
J'utilise généralement quelque chose comme l'implémentation donnée dans le fabuleux Java efficace . C'est rapide et crée un assez bon hash qui est peu susceptible de causer des collisions. Choisissez deux nombres premiers différents, p. Ex. 17 et 23, et faire:
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;
}
}
Comme indiqué dans les commentaires, vous constaterez peut-être qu'il est préférable de choisir un nombre premier élevé pour le multiplier. Apparemment, 486187739 est bon ... et bien que la plupart des exemples que j'ai vus avec des nombres petits tendent à utiliser des nombres premiers, il existe au moins des algorithmes similaires dans lesquels des nombres non premiers sont souvent utilisés. Exemple de FNV ultérieurement , par exemple, j’ai utilisé des nombres qui fonctionnent apparemment bien - mais la valeur initiale n’est pas un nombre premier. (Cependant, la constante de multiplication est primordiale. Je ne sais pas trop à quel point c'est important.)
C’est mieux que la pratique courante consistant à XOR utiliser des codes de hachage pour deux raisons principales. Supposons que nous ayons un type avec deux int champs:
XorHash(x, x) == XorHash(y, y) == 0 for all x, y
XorHash(x, y) == XorHash(y, x) for all x, y
Soit dit en passant, le premier algorithme est celui actuellement utilisé par le compilateur C # pour les types anonymes.
Cette page offre de nombreuses options. Je pense que dans la plupart des cas, ce qui précède est & «Assez bien &»; et c'est incroyablement facile à retenir et à bien faire. L’alternative FNV est également simple, mais utilise différentes constantes et ADD au lieu de <=> en tant qu'opération de combinaison. Cela ressemble quelque chose au code ci-dessous, mais l’algorithme FNV normal fonctionne sur des octets individuels. Cela nécessiterait donc de modifier pour effectuer une itération par octet, au lieu de par valeur de hachage de 32 bits. FNV est également conçu pour des longueurs de données variables, alors que nous l’utilisons ici pour le même nombre de valeurs de champ. Les commentaires sur cette réponse suggèrent que le code ici ne fonctionne pas aussi bien (dans l'exemple de cas testé) que l'approche d'addition ci-dessus.
// 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;
}
}
Notez qu’une chose à savoir est que, dans l’idéal, vous devriez éviter que votre état sensible à l’égalité (et donc au hashcode) ne change après l’ajouté à une collection qui dépend du code de hachage.
Conformément à la documentation :
Vous pouvez remplacer GetHashCode pour les types de référence immuables. En général, pour les types de référence modifiables, vous ne devez remplacer GetHashCode que si:
- Vous pouvez calculer le code de hachage à partir de champs non mutables; ou
- Vous pouvez vous assurer que le code de hachage d'un objet mutable ne change pas tant que l'objet est contenu dans une collection qui repose sur son code de hachage.
Autres conseils
Type anonyme
Microsoft fournit déjà un bon générateur générique HashCode: copiez simplement les valeurs de votre propriété / champ dans un type anonyme et hachez-le:
new { PropA, PropB, PropC, PropD }.GetHashCode();
Cela fonctionnera pour n’importe quel nombre de propriétés. Il n'utilise pas de boxe. Il utilise simplement l'algorithme déjà implémenté dans le framework pour les types anonymes.
ValueTuple - Mise à jour pour C # 7
Comme @cactuaroid le mentionne dans les commentaires, un tuple de valeur peut être utilisé. Cela enregistre quelques frappes au clavier et, plus important encore, s’exécute uniquement sur la pile (pas de garbage):
(PropA, PropB, PropC, PropD).GetHashCode();
(Remarque: la technique originale utilisant des types anonymes semble créer un objet sur le tas, c’est-à-dire un déchet, car les types anonymes sont implémentés en tant que classes, bien que cela puisse être optimisé par le compilateur. Il serait intéressant de comparer ces options , mais l’option tuple devrait être supérieure.)
Voici mon assistant hashcode.
Son avantage est qu’il utilise des arguments de type génériques et qu’il ne causera donc pas de casse:
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();
}
}
De plus, il a une méthode d'extension pour fournir une interface fluide, vous pouvez donc l'utiliser comme ceci:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return HashHelper.GetHashCode(Manufacturer, PartN, Quantity);
}
ou comme ceci:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return 0.CombineHashCode(Manufacturer)
.CombineHashCode(PartN)
.CombineHashCode(Quantity);
}
J'ai une classe de hachage dans la bibliothèque Helper que je l'utilise à cette fin.
/// <summary>
/// This is a simple hashing function from Robert Sedgwicks Hashing in C book.
/// Also, some simple optimizations to the algorithm in order to speed up
/// its hashing process have been added. from: www.partow.net
/// </summary>
/// <param name="input">array of objects, parameters combination that you need
/// to get a unique hash code for them</param>
/// <returns>Hash code</returns>
public static int RSHash(params object[] input)
{
const int b = 378551;
int a = 63689;
int hash = 0;
// If it overflows then just wrap around
unchecked
{
for (int i = 0; i < input.Length; i++)
{
if (input[i] != null)
{
hash = hash * a + input[i].GetHashCode();
a = a * b;
}
}
}
return hash;
}
Ensuite, vous pouvez simplement l'utiliser comme:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return Hashing.RSHash(_field1, _field2, _field3);
}
Je n’ai pas évalué ses performances, tout commentaire est le bienvenu.
Voici ma classe d'assistance utilisant la implémentation de Jon Skeet .
public static class HashCode
{
public const int Start = 17;
public static int Hash<T>(this int hash, T obj)
{
var h = EqualityComparer<T>.Default.GetHashCode(obj);
return unchecked((hash * 31) + h);
}
}
Utilisation:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return HashCode.Start
.Hash(_field1)
.Hash(_field2)
.Hash(_field3);
}
Si vous souhaitez éviter d'écrire une méthode d'extension pour System.Int32:
public struct HashCode
{
private readonly int _value;
public HashCode(int value) => _value = value;
public static HashCode Start { get; } = new HashCode(17);
public static implicit operator int(HashCode hash) => hash._value;
public HashCode Hash<T>(T obj)
{
var h = EqualityComparer<T>.Default.GetHashCode(obj);
return unchecked(new HashCode((_value * 31) + h));
}
public override int GetHashCode() => _value;
}
Il est toujours générique, il évite toujours toute allocation de tas et est utilisé exactement de la même manière:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
// This time `HashCode.Start` is not an `Int32`, it's a `HashCode` instance.
// And the result is implicitly converted to `Int32`.
return HashCode.Start
.Hash(_field1)
.Hash(_field2)
.Hash(_field3);
}
Mise à jour après le commentaire de Martin:
obj != null a provoqué la boxe alors je suis passé au comparateur par défaut.
- Voir cette réponse concernant les performances du comparateur par défaut.
- Voir cette question pour une discussion sur les codes de hachage des valeurs nulles.
Modifier (mai 2018):
EqualityComparer<T>.Default getter est maintenant un élément intrinsèque de JIT - la demande d'extraction est mentionnée par Stephen Toub dans ce blog publier .
Dans la plupart des cas, lorsque Equals () compare plusieurs champs, peu importe que votre GetHash () hache un ou plusieurs champs. Assurez-vous simplement que le calcul du hachage est vraiment pas cher ( Pas d'allocation , s'il vous plaît) et rapide ( Pas de calcul lourd et certainement pas de connexion à une base de données) et fournit une bonne distribution. .
Le levage de charges lourdes devrait faire partie de la méthode Equals (); le hachage devrait être une opération très bon marché pour permettre d'appeler Equals () sur le moins d'éléments possible.
Et un dernier conseil: Ne vous fiez pas à la stabilité de GetHashCode () sur plusieurs exécutions d’applications . De nombreux types .Net ne garantissent pas que leurs codes de hachage restent les mêmes après un redémarrage. Vous ne devez donc utiliser que la valeur de GetHashCode () pour les structures de données en mémoire.
Up until recently my answer would have been very close to Jon Skeet's here. However, I recently started a project which used power-of-two hash tables, that is hash tables where the size of the internal table is 8, 16, 32, etc. There's a good reason for favouring prime-number sizes, but there are some advantages to power-of-two sizes too.
And it pretty much sucked. So after a bit of experimentation and research I started re-hashing my hashes with the following:
public static int ReHash(int source)
{
unchecked
{
ulong c = 0xDEADBEEFDEADBEEF + (ulong)source;
ulong d = 0xE2ADBEEFDEADBEEF ^ c;
ulong a = d += c = c << 15 | c >> -15;
ulong b = a += d = d << 52 | d >> -52;
c ^= b += a = a << 26 | a >> -26;
d ^= c += b = b << 51 | b >> -51;
a ^= d += c = c << 28 | c >> -28;
b ^= a += d = d << 9 | d >> -9;
c ^= b += a = a << 47 | a >> -47;
d ^= c += b << 54 | b >> -54;
a ^= d += c << 32 | c >> 32;
a += d << 25 | d >> -25;
return (int)(a >> 1);
}
}
And then my power-of-two hash table didn't suck any more.
This disturbed me though, because the above shouldn't work. Or more precisely, it shouldn't work unless the original GetHashCode() was poor in a very particular way.
Re-mixing a hashcode can't improve a great hashcode, because the only possible effect is that we introduce a few more collisions.
Re-mixing a hash code can't improve a terrible hash code, because the only possible effect is we change e.g. a large number of collisions on value 53 to a large number of value 18,3487,291.
Re-mixing a hash code can only improve a hash code that did at least fairly well in avoiding absolute collisions throughout its range (232 possible values) but badly at avoiding collisions when modulo'd down for actual use in a hash table. While the simpler modulo of a power-of-two table made this more apparent, it was also having a negative effect with the more common prime-number tables, that just wasn't as obvious (the extra work in rehashing would outweigh the benefit, but the benefit would still be there).
Edit: I was also using open-addressing, which would also have increased the sensitivity to collision, perhaps more so than the fact it was power-of-two.
And well, it was disturbing how much the string.GetHashCode() implementations in .NET (or study here) could be improved this way (on the order of tests running about 20-30 times faster due to fewer collisions) and more disturbing how much my own hash codes could be improved (much more than that).
All the GetHashCode() implementations I'd coded in the past, and indeed used as the basis of answers on this site, were much worse than I'd throught. Much of the time it was "good enough" for much of the uses, but I wanted something better.
So I put that project to one side (it was a pet project anyway) and started looking at how to produce a good, well-distributed hash code in .NET quickly.
In the end I settled on porting SpookyHash to .NET. Indeed the code above is a fast-path version of using SpookyHash to produce a 32-bit output from a 32-bit input.
Now, SpookyHash is not a nice quick to remember piece of code. My port of it is even less so because I hand-inlined a lot of it for better speed*. But that's what code reuse is for.
Then I put that project to one side, because just as the original project had produced the question of how to produce a better hash code, so that project produced the question of how to produce a better .NET memcpy.
Then I came back, and produced a lot of overloads to easily feed just about all of the native types (except decimal†) into a hash code.
It's fast, for which Bob Jenkins deserves most of the credit because his original code I ported from is faster still, especially on 64-bit machines which the algorithm is optimised for‡.
The full code can be seen at https://bitbucket.org/JonHanna/spookilysharp/src but consider that the code above is a simplified version of it.
However, since it's now already written, one can make use of it more easily:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
var hash = new SpookyHash();
hash.Update(field1);
hash.Update(field2);
hash.Update(field3);
return hash.Final().GetHashCode();
}
It also takes seed values, so if you need to deal with untrusted input and want to protect against Hash DoS attacks you can set a seed based on uptime or similar, and make the results unpredictable by attackers:
private static long hashSeed0 = Environment.TickCount;
private static long hashSeed1 = DateTime.Now.Ticks;
public override int GetHashCode()
{
//produce different hashes ever time this application is restarted
//but remain consistent in each run, so attackers have a harder time
//DoSing the hash tables.
var hash = new SpookyHash(hashSeed0, hashSeed1);
hash.Update(field1);
hash.Update(field2);
hash.Update(field3);
return hash.Final().GetHashCode();
}
*A big surprise in this is that hand-inlining a rotation method that returned (x << n) | (x >> -n) improved things. I would have been sure that the jitter would have inlined that for me, but profiling showed otherwise.
†decimal isn't native from the .NET perspective though it is from the C#. The problem with it is that its own GetHashCode() treats precision as significant while its own Equals() does not. Both are valid choices, but not mixed like that. In implementing your own version, you need to choose to do one, or the other, but I can't know which you'd want.
‡By way of comparison. If used on a string, the SpookyHash on 64 bits is considerably faster than string.GetHashCode() on 32 bits which is slightly faster than string.GetHashCode() on 64 bits, which is considerably faster than SpookyHash on 32 bits, though still fast enough to be a reasonable choice.
This is a good one:
/// <summary>
/// Helper class for generating hash codes suitable
/// for use in hashing algorithms and data structures like a hash table.
/// </summary>
public static class HashCodeHelper
{
private static int GetHashCodeInternal(int key1, int key2)
{
unchecked
{
var num = 0x7e53a269;
num = (-1521134295 * num) + key1;
num += (num << 10);
num ^= (num >> 6);
num = ((-1521134295 * num) + key2);
num += (num << 10);
num ^= (num >> 6);
return num;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Returns a hash code for the specified objects
/// </summary>
/// <param name="arr">An array of objects used for generating the
/// hash code.</param>
/// <returns>
/// A hash code, suitable for use in hashing algorithms and data
/// structures like a hash table.
/// </returns>
public static int GetHashCode(params object[] arr)
{
int hash = 0;
foreach (var item in arr)
hash = GetHashCodeInternal(hash, item.GetHashCode());
return hash;
}
/// <summary>
/// Returns a hash code for the specified objects
/// </summary>
/// <param name="obj1">The first object.</param>
/// <param name="obj2">The second object.</param>
/// <param name="obj3">The third object.</param>
/// <param name="obj4">The fourth object.</param>
/// <returns>
/// A hash code, suitable for use in hashing algorithms and
/// data structures like a hash table.
/// </returns>
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4>(T1 obj1, T2 obj2, T3 obj3,
T4 obj4)
{
return GetHashCode(obj1, GetHashCode(obj2, obj3, obj4));
}
/// <summary>
/// Returns a hash code for the specified objects
/// </summary>
/// <param name="obj1">The first object.</param>
/// <param name="obj2">The second object.</param>
/// <param name="obj3">The third object.</param>
/// <returns>
/// A hash code, suitable for use in hashing algorithms and data
/// structures like a hash table.
/// </returns>
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3>(T1 obj1, T2 obj2, T3 obj3)
{
return GetHashCode(obj1, GetHashCode(obj2, obj3));
}
/// <summary>
/// Returns a hash code for the specified objects
/// </summary>
/// <param name="obj1">The first object.</param>
/// <param name="obj2">The second object.</param>
/// <returns>
/// A hash code, suitable for use in hashing algorithms and data
/// structures like a hash table.
/// </returns>
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2>(T1 obj1, T2 obj2)
{
return GetHashCodeInternal(obj1.GetHashCode(), obj2.GetHashCode());
}
}
And here is how to use it:
private struct Key
{
private Type _type;
private string _field;
public Type Type { get { return _type; } }
public string Field { get { return _field; } }
public Key(Type type, string field)
{
_type = type;
_field = field;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return HashCodeHelper.GetHashCode(_field, _type);
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (!(obj is Key))
return false;
var tf = (Key)obj;
return tf._field.Equals(_field) && tf._type.Equals(_type);
}
}
Here is another fluent implementation of the algorithm posted above by Jon Skeet, but which includes no allocations or boxing operations:
public static class Hash
{
public const int Base = 17;
public static int HashObject(this int hash, object obj)
{
unchecked { return hash * 23 + (obj == null ? 0 : obj.GetHashCode()); }
}
public static int HashValue<T>(this int hash, T value)
where T : struct
{
unchecked { return hash * 23 + value.GetHashCode(); }
}
}
Usage:
public class MyType<T>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public int Value { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<T> Children { get; set; }
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return Hash.Base
.HashObject(this.Name)
.HashObject(this.Description)
.HashValue(this.Value)
.HashObject(this.Children);
}
}
The compiler will ensure HashValue is not called with a class due to the generic type constraint. But there is no compiler support for HashObject since adding a generic argument also adds a boxing operation.
As of https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/14863, there is a new way to generate hash codes that is super simple! Just write
public override int GetHashCode()
=> HashCode.Combine(field1, field2, field3);
This will generate a quality hash code without you having to worry about the implementation details.
Here is my simplistic approach. I am using the classic builder pattern for this. It is typesafe (no boxing/unboxing) and also compatbile with .NET 2.0 (no extension methods etc.).
It is used like this:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
HashBuilder b = new HashBuilder();
b.AddItems(this.member1, this.member2, this.member3);
return b.Result;
}
And here is the acutal builder class:
internal class HashBuilder
{
private const int Prime1 = 17;
private const int Prime2 = 23;
private int result = Prime1;
public HashBuilder()
{
}
public HashBuilder(int startHash)
{
this.result = startHash;
}
public int Result
{
get
{
return this.result;
}
}
public void AddItem<T>(T item)
{
unchecked
{
this.result = this.result * Prime2 + item.GetHashCode();
}
}
public void AddItems<T1, T2>(T1 item1, T2 item2)
{
this.AddItem(item1);
this.AddItem(item2);
}
public void AddItems<T1, T2, T3>(T1 item1, T2 item2, T3 item3)
{
this.AddItem(item1);
this.AddItem(item2);
this.AddItem(item3);
}
public void AddItems<T1, T2, T3, T4>(T1 item1, T2 item2, T3 item3,
T4 item4)
{
this.AddItem(item1);
this.AddItem(item2);
this.AddItem(item3);
this.AddItem(item4);
}
public void AddItems<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(T1 item1, T2 item2, T3 item3,
T4 item4, T5 item5)
{
this.AddItem(item1);
this.AddItem(item2);
this.AddItem(item3);
this.AddItem(item4);
this.AddItem(item5);
}
public void AddItems<T>(params T[] items)
{
foreach (T item in items)
{
this.AddItem(item);
}
}
}
ReSharper users can generate GetHashCode, Equals, and others with ReSharper -> Edit -> Generate Code -> Equality Members.
// ReSharper's GetHashCode looks like this
public override int GetHashCode() {
unchecked {
int hashCode = Id;
hashCode = (hashCode * 397) ^ IntMember;
hashCode = (hashCode * 397) ^ OtherIntMember;
hashCode = (hashCode * 397) ^ (RefMember != null ? RefMember.GetHashCode() : 0);
// ...
return hashCode;
}
}
Most of my work is done with database connectivity which means that my classes all have a unique identifier from the database. I always use the ID from the database to generate the hashcode.
// Unique ID from database
private int _id;
...
{
return _id.GetHashCode();
}
Pretty much similar to nightcoder's solution except it's easier to raise primes if you want to.
PS: This is one of those times where you puke a little in your mouth, knowing that this could be refactored into one method with 9 default's but it would be slower, so you just close your eyes and try to forget about it.
/// <summary>
/// Try not to look at the source code. It works. Just rely on it.
/// </summary>
public static class HashHelper
{
private const int PrimeOne = 17;
private const int PrimeTwo = 23;
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5, T6 arg6, T7 arg7, T8 arg8, T9 arg9, T10 arg10)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg6.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg7.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg8.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg9.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg10.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5, T6 arg6, T7 arg7, T8 arg8, T9 arg9)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg6.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg7.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg8.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg9.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5, T6 arg6, T7 arg7, T8 arg8)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg6.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg7.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg8.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5, T6 arg6, T7 arg7)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg6.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg7.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5, T6 arg6)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg6.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4, T5>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4, T5 arg5)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg5.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3, T4>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3, T4 arg4)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg4.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2, T3>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg3.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
public static int GetHashCode<T1, T2>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2)
{
unchecked
{
int hash = PrimeOne;
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * PrimeTwo + arg2.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
}
If we have no more than 8 properties (hopefully), here is another alternative.
ValueTuple is a struct and appears to have a solid GetHashCode implementation.
That means we could simply do this:
// Yay, no allocations and no custom implementations!
public override int GetHashCode() => (this.PropA, this.PropB).GetHashCode();
Let's take a look at .NET Core's current implementation for ValueTuple's GetHashCode.
This is from ValueTuple:
internal static int CombineHashCodes(int h1, int h2)
{
return HashHelpers.Combine(HashHelpers.Combine(HashHelpers.RandomSeed, h1), h2);
}
internal static int CombineHashCodes(int h1, int h2, int h3)
{
return HashHelpers.Combine(CombineHashCodes(h1, h2), h3);
}
And this is from HashHelper:
public static readonly int RandomSeed = Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
public static int Combine(int h1, int h2)
{
unchecked
{
// RyuJIT optimizes this to use the ROL instruction
// Related GitHub pull request: dotnet/coreclr#1830
uint rol5 = ((uint)h1 << 5) | ((uint)h1 >> 27);
return ((int)rol5 + h1) ^ h2;
}
}
In English:
- Left rotate (circular shift) h1 by 5 positions.
- Add the result and h1 together.
- XOR the result with h2.
- Start by performing the above operation on { static random seed, h1 }.
- For each further item, perform the operation on the previous result and the next item (e.g. h2).
It would be nice to know more about the properties of this ROL-5 hash code algorithm.
Regrettably, deferring to ValueTuple for our own GetHashCode may not be as fast as we would like and expect. This comment in a related discussion illustrates that directly calling HashHelpers.Combine is more performant. On the flip side, that one is internal, so we'd have to copy the code, sacrificing much of what we had gained here. Also, we'd be responsible for remembering to first Combine with the random seed. I don't know what the consequences are if we skip that step.
.NET Core 2.1 And Above
If you are using .NET Core 2.1 or above, you can use the System.HashCode struct. There are two methods of using it:
HashCode.Combine
The Combine method can be used to create a hash code, given up to eight objects.
public override int GetHashCode() => HashCode.Combine(this.object1, this.object2);
HashCode.Add
The Add method helps you to deal with collections:
public override int GetHashCode()
{
var hashCode = new HashCode();
hashCode.Add(this.object1);
foreach (var item in this.collection)
{
hashCode.Add(item);
}
return hashCode.ToHashCode();
}
GetHashCode Made Easy
You can read the full blog post 'GetHashCode Made Easy' for more details and comments.
Usage Example
public class SuperHero
{
public int Age { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<string> Powers { get; set; }
public override int GetHashCode() =>
HashCode.Of(this.name).And(this.age).AndEach(this.powers);
}
Implementation
public struct HashCode : IEquatable<HashCode>
{
private const int EmptyCollectionPrimeNumber = 19;
private readonly int value;
private HashCode(int value) => this.value = value;
public static implicit operator int(HashCode hashCode) => hashCode.value;
public static bool operator ==(HashCode left, HashCode right) => left.Equals(right);
public static bool operator !=(HashCode left, HashCode right) => !(left == right);
public static HashCode Of<T>(T item) => new HashCode(GetHashCode(item));
public static HashCode OfEach<T>(IEnumerable<T> items) =>
items == null ? new HashCode(0) : new HashCode(GetHashCode(items, 0));
public HashCode And<T>(T item) =>
new HashCode(CombineHashCodes(this.value, GetHashCode(item)));
public HashCode AndEach<T>(IEnumerable<T> items)
{
if (items == null)
{
return new HashCode(this.value);
}
return new HashCode(GetHashCode(items, this.value));
}
public bool Equals(HashCode other) => this.value.Equals(other.value);
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (obj is HashCode)
{
return this.Equals((HashCode)obj);
}
return false;
}
public override int GetHashCode() => this.value.GetHashCode();
private static int CombineHashCodes(int h1, int h2)
{
unchecked
{
// Code copied from System.Tuple a good way to combine hashes.
return ((h1 << 5) + h1) ^ h2;
}
}
private static int GetHashCode<T>(T item) => item?.GetHashCode() ?? 0;
private static int GetHashCode<T>(IEnumerable<T> items, int startHashCode)
{
var temp = startHashCode;
var enumerator = items.GetEnumerator();
if (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
temp = CombineHashCodes(temp, GetHashCode(enumerator.Current));
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
temp = CombineHashCodes(temp, GetHashCode(enumerator.Current));
}
}
else
{
temp = CombineHashCodes(temp, EmptyCollectionPrimeNumber);
}
return temp;
}
}
I ran into an issue with floats and decimals using the implementation selected as the answer above.
This test fails (floats; hash is the same even though I switched 2 values to be negative):
var obj1 = new { A = 100m, B = 100m, C = 100m, D = 100m};
var obj2 = new { A = 100m, B = 100m, C = -100m, D = -100m};
var hash1 = ComputeHash(obj1.A, obj1.B, obj1.C, obj1.D);
var hash2 = ComputeHash(obj2.A, obj2.B, obj2.C, obj2.D);
Assert.IsFalse(hash1 == hash2, string.Format("Hashcode values should be different hash1:{0} hash2:{1}",hash1,hash2));
But this test passes (with ints):
var obj1 = new { A = 100m, B = 100m, C = 100, D = 100};
var obj2 = new { A = 100m, B = 100m, C = -100, D = -100};
var hash1 = ComputeHash(obj1.A, obj1.B, obj1.C, obj1.D);
var hash2 = ComputeHash(obj2.A, obj2.B, obj2.C, obj2.D);
Assert.IsFalse(hash1 == hash2, string.Format("Hashcode values should be different hash1:{0} hash2:{1}",hash1,hash2));
I changed my implementation to not use GetHashCode for the primitive types and it seems to work better
private static int InternalComputeHash(params object[] obj)
{
unchecked
{
var result = (int)SEED_VALUE_PRIME;
for (uint i = 0; i < obj.Length; i++)
{
var currval = result;
var nextval = DetermineNextValue(obj[i]);
result = (result * MULTIPLIER_VALUE_PRIME) + nextval;
}
return result;
}
}
private static int DetermineNextValue(object value)
{
unchecked
{
int hashCode;
if (value is short
|| value is int
|| value is byte
|| value is sbyte
|| value is uint
|| value is ushort
|| value is ulong
|| value is long
|| value is float
|| value is double
|| value is decimal)
{
return Convert.ToInt32(value);
}
else
{
return value != null ? value.GetHashCode() : 0;
}
}
}
This is a static helper class that implements Josh Bloch's implementation; and provides explicit overloads to "prevent" boxing, and also to implement the hash specifically for the long primitives.
You can pass a string comparison that matches your equals implementation.
Because the Hash output is always an int, you can just chain Hash calls.
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
namespace Sc.Util.System
{
/// <summary>
/// Static methods that allow easy implementation of hashCode. Example usage:
/// <code>
/// public override int GetHashCode()
/// => HashCodeHelper.Seed
/// .Hash(primitiveField)
/// .Hsh(objectField)
/// .Hash(iEnumerableField);
/// </code>
/// </summary>
public static class HashCodeHelper
{
/// <summary>
/// An initial value for a hashCode, to which is added contributions from fields.
/// Using a non-zero value decreases collisions of hashCode values.
/// </summary>
public const int Seed = 23;
private const int oddPrimeNumber = 37;
/// <summary>
/// Rotates the seed against a prime number.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The hash's first term.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
private static int rotateFirstTerm(int aSeed)
{
unchecked {
return HashCodeHelper.oddPrimeNumber * aSeed;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Contributes a boolean to the developing HashCode seed.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="aBoolean">The value to contribute.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int Hash(this int aSeed, bool aBoolean)
{
unchecked {
return HashCodeHelper.rotateFirstTerm(aSeed)
+ (aBoolean
? 1
: 0);
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Contributes a char to the developing HashCode seed.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="aChar">The value to contribute.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int Hash(this int aSeed, char aChar)
{
unchecked {
return HashCodeHelper.rotateFirstTerm(aSeed)
+ aChar;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Contributes an int to the developing HashCode seed.
/// Note that byte and short are handled by this method, through implicit conversion.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="aInt">The value to contribute.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int Hash(this int aSeed, int aInt)
{
unchecked {
return HashCodeHelper.rotateFirstTerm(aSeed)
+ aInt;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Contributes a long to the developing HashCode seed.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="aLong">The value to contribute.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int Hash(this int aSeed, long aLong)
{
unchecked {
return HashCodeHelper.rotateFirstTerm(aSeed)
+ (int)(aLong ^ (aLong >> 32));
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Contributes a float to the developing HashCode seed.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="aFloat">The value to contribute.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int Hash(this int aSeed, float aFloat)
{
unchecked {
return HashCodeHelper.rotateFirstTerm(aSeed)
+ Convert.ToInt32(aFloat);
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Contributes a double to the developing HashCode seed.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="aDouble">The value to contribute.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int Hash(this int aSeed, double aDouble)
=> aSeed.Hash(Convert.ToInt64(aDouble));
/// <summary>
/// Contributes a string to the developing HashCode seed.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="aString">The value to contribute.</param>
/// <param name="stringComparison">Optional comparison that creates the hash.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int Hash(
this int aSeed,
string aString,
StringComparison stringComparison = StringComparison.Ordinal)
{
if (aString == null)
return aSeed.Hash(0);
switch (stringComparison) {
case StringComparison.CurrentCulture :
return StringComparer.CurrentCulture.GetHashCode(aString);
case StringComparison.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase :
return StringComparer.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase.GetHashCode(aString);
case StringComparison.InvariantCulture :
return StringComparer.InvariantCulture.GetHashCode(aString);
case StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase :
return StringComparer.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase.GetHashCode(aString);
case StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase :
return StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.GetHashCode(aString);
default :
return StringComparer.Ordinal.GetHashCode(aString);
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Contributes a possibly-null array to the developing HashCode seed.
/// Each element may be a primitive, a reference, or a possibly-null array.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="aArray">CAN be null.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int Hash(this int aSeed, IEnumerable aArray)
{
if (aArray == null)
return aSeed.Hash(0);
int countPlusOne = 1; // So it differs from null
foreach (object item in aArray) {
++countPlusOne;
if (item is IEnumerable arrayItem) {
if (!object.ReferenceEquals(aArray, arrayItem))
aSeed = aSeed.Hash(arrayItem); // recursive call!
} else
aSeed = aSeed.Hash(item);
}
return aSeed.Hash(countPlusOne);
}
/// <summary>
/// Contributes a possibly-null array to the developing HashCode seed.
/// You must provide the hash function for each element.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="aArray">CAN be null.</param>
/// <param name="hashElement">Required: yields the hash for each element
/// in <paramref name="aArray"/>.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int Hash<T>(this int aSeed, IEnumerable<T> aArray, Func<T, int> hashElement)
{
if (aArray == null)
return aSeed.Hash(0);
int countPlusOne = 1; // So it differs from null
foreach (T item in aArray) {
++countPlusOne;
aSeed = aSeed.Hash(hashElement(item));
}
return aSeed.Hash(countPlusOne);
}
/// <summary>
/// Contributes a possibly-null object to the developing HashCode seed.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="aObject">CAN be null.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int Hash(this int aSeed, object aObject)
{
switch (aObject) {
case null :
return aSeed.Hash(0);
case bool b :
return aSeed.Hash(b);
case char c :
return aSeed.Hash(c);
case int i :
return aSeed.Hash(i);
case long l :
return aSeed.Hash(l);
case float f :
return aSeed.Hash(f);
case double d :
return aSeed.Hash(d);
case string s :
return aSeed.Hash(s);
case IEnumerable iEnumerable :
return aSeed.Hash(iEnumerable);
}
return aSeed.Hash(aObject.GetHashCode());
}
/// <summary>
/// This utility method uses reflection to iterate all specified properties that are readable
/// on the given object, excluding any property names given in the params arguments, and
/// generates a hashcode.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing hash code, or the seed: if you have no seed, use
/// the <see cref="Seed"/>.</param>
/// <param name="aObject">CAN be null.</param>
/// <param name="propertySelector"><see cref="BindingFlags"/> to select the properties to hash.</param>
/// <param name="ignorePropertyNames">Optional.</param>
/// <returns>A hash from the properties contributed to <c>aSeed</c>.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int HashAllProperties(
this int aSeed,
object aObject,
BindingFlags propertySelector
= BindingFlags.Instance
| BindingFlags.Public
| BindingFlags.GetProperty,
params string[] ignorePropertyNames)
{
if (aObject == null)
return aSeed.Hash(0);
if ((ignorePropertyNames != null)
&& (ignorePropertyNames.Length != 0)) {
foreach (PropertyInfo propertyInfo in aObject.GetType()
.GetProperties(propertySelector)) {
if (!propertyInfo.CanRead
|| (Array.IndexOf(ignorePropertyNames, propertyInfo.Name) >= 0))
continue;
aSeed = aSeed.Hash(propertyInfo.GetValue(aObject));
}
} else {
foreach (PropertyInfo propertyInfo in aObject.GetType()
.GetProperties(propertySelector)) {
if (propertyInfo.CanRead)
aSeed = aSeed.Hash(propertyInfo.GetValue(aObject));
}
}
return aSeed;
}
/// <summary>
/// NOTICE: this method is provided to contribute a <see cref="KeyValuePair{TKey,TValue}"/> to
/// the developing HashCode seed; by hashing the key and the value independently. HOWEVER,
/// this method has a different name since it will not be automatically invoked by
/// <see cref="Hash(int,object)"/>, <see cref="Hash(int,IEnumerable)"/>,
/// or <see cref="HashAllProperties"/> --- you MUST NOT mix this method with those unless
/// you are sure that no KeyValuePair instances will be passed to those methods; or otherwise
/// the generated hash code will not be consistent. This method itself ALSO will not invoke
/// this method on the Key or Value here if that itself is a KeyValuePair.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="keyValuePair">The value to contribute.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int HashKeyAndValue<TKey, TValue>(this int aSeed, KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> keyValuePair)
=> aSeed.Hash(keyValuePair.Key)
.Hash(keyValuePair.Value);
/// <summary>
/// NOTICE: this method is provided to contribute a collection of <see cref="KeyValuePair{TKey,TValue}"/>
/// to the developing HashCode seed; by hashing the key and the value independently. HOWEVER,
/// this method has a different name since it will not be automatically invoked by
/// <see cref="Hash(int,object)"/>, <see cref="Hash(int,IEnumerable)"/>,
/// or <see cref="HashAllProperties"/> --- you MUST NOT mix this method with those unless
/// you are sure that no KeyValuePair instances will be passed to those methods; or otherwise
/// the generated hash code will not be consistent. This method itself ALSO will not invoke
/// this method on a Key or Value here if that itself is a KeyValuePair or an Enumerable of
/// KeyValuePair.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="aSeed">The developing HashCode value or seed.</param>
/// <param name="keyValuePairs">The values to contribute.</param>
/// <returns>The new hash code.</returns>
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
public static int HashKeysAndValues<TKey, TValue>(
this int aSeed,
IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>> keyValuePairs)
{
if (keyValuePairs == null)
return aSeed.Hash(null);
foreach (KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> keyValuePair in keyValuePairs) {
aSeed = aSeed.HashKeyAndValue(keyValuePair);
}
return aSeed;
}
}
}
Microsoft lead for several way of hashing...
//for classes that contain a single int value
return this.value;
//for classes that contain multiple int value
return x ^ y;
//for classes that contain single number bigger than int
return ((int)value ^ (int)(value >> 32));
//for classes that contain class instance fields which inherit from object
return obj1.GetHashCode();
//for classes that contain multiple class instance fields which inherit from object
return obj1.GetHashCode() ^ obj2.GetHashCode() ^ obj3.GetHashCode();
I can guess that for multiple big int you can use this:
int a=((int)value1 ^ (int)(value1 >> 32));
int b=((int)value2 ^ (int)(value2 >> 32));
int c=((int)value3 ^ (int)(value3 >> 32));
return a ^ b ^ c;
And same for multi-type: all converted first to int using GetHashCode()
then the int values will be xor'ed and the result is your hash.
For those who use hash as ID (I mean an unique value), hash is naturally limited to a number of digits, I think it was 5 bytes for hashing algorithm, at least MD5.
You may turn multiple values to a hashed value and some of them be same, so don't use it as an identifier. (maybe some day I am going to use your component)
