Considering these two classes, which statement is true? class Test1 { public int value; public int hashCode() { return 42; } } class Test2 { public int value; public int hashcode() { return (int)(value ^ 5); } }
-
Aclass Test1 will not compile.
-
BThe Test1 hashCode() method is more efficient than the Test2 hashCode() method.
-
CThe Test1 hashCode() method is less efficient than the Test2 hashCode() method.
-
Dclass Test2 will not compile.
-
EBoth classes automatically override Object.hashCode().
Answer
Correct Answer: The Test1 hashCode() method is less efficient than the Test2 hashCode() method.
Explanation
Introduction / Context: This problem contrasts two implementations related to hashing. One class returns a constant hash code; the other attempts to compute a value-based hash but misspells the method name. The question asks which statement is true in practice.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Test1.hashCode()correctly overridesObject.hashCode()and always returns 42.Test2.hashcode()(lowercase “c”) does not overrideObject.hashCode(); it is just an unrelated method.- Both classes compile.
Concept / Approach: For hash-based collections, a constant hash code leads to worst-case bucket collisions, degrading operations to linear time, which is considered less efficient behaviorally. In contrast, a value-dependent hash (if it actually overrides hashCode()) would typically distribute instances better. Even though Test2 failed to override due to a spelling error, the intended comparison is between a constant hash and a value-derived hash: the constant-hash approach is less efficient for hashing purposes.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Test1:hashCode() → constant → maximal collisions → poor hashing efficiency.Test2: as written, does not override; however, a correctly spelled value-based hash (hashCode()) is the better practice and more efficient for hashing.Verification / Alternative check: Insert numerous Test1 instances into a HashSet and measure throughput versus a class with a data-distributed hash; collisions will make operations slower for the constant hash case.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- Compilation: both classes compile; spelling the method differently merely defines a new method.
- “More efficient”: constant hash codes are considered worst practice for hash tables.
- “Both override”: only
Test1overrides correctly.
Common Pitfalls: Equating “compiles” with “good for performance.” Also, overlooking case sensitivity in method overriding (Java is case-sensitive).
Final Answer: The Test1 hashCode() method is less efficient than the Test2 hashCode() method.