博客

先看源码

/*
     * Implementation notes.
     *
     * This map usually acts as a binned (bucketed) hash table, but
     * when bins get too large, they are transformed into bins of
     * TreeNodes, each structured similarly to those in
     * java.util.TreeMap. Most methods try to use normal bins, but
     * relay to TreeNode methods when applicable (simply by checking
     * instanceof a node).  Bins of TreeNodes may be traversed and
     * used like any others, but additionally support faster lookup
     * when overpopulated. However, since the vast majority of bins in
     * normal use are not overpopulated, checking for existence of
     * tree bins may be delayed in the course of table methods.
     *
     * Tree bins (i.e., bins whose elements are all TreeNodes) are
     * ordered primarily by hashCode, but in the case of ties, if two
     * elements are of the same "class C implements Comparable<C>",
     * type then their compareTo method is used for ordering. (We
     * conservatively check generic types via reflection to validate
     * this -- see method comparableClassFor).  The added complexity
     * of tree bins is worthwhile in providing worst-case O(log n)
     * operations when keys either have distinct hashes or are
     * orderable, Thus, performance degrades gracefully under
     * accidental or malicious usages in which hashCode() methods
     * return values that are poorly distributed, as well as those in
     * which many keys share a hashCode, so long as they are also
     * Comparable. (If neither of these apply, we may waste about a
     * factor of two in time and space compared to taking no
     * precautions. But the only known cases stem from poor user
     * programming practices that are already so slow that this makes
     * little difference.)
     *
     * Because TreeNodes are about twice the size of regular nodes, we
     * use them only when bins contain enough nodes to warrant use
     * (see TREEIFY_THRESHOLD). And when they become too small (due to
     * removal or resizing) they are converted back to plain bins.  In
     * usages with well-distributed user hashCodes, tree bins are
     * rarely used.  Ideally, under random hashCodes, the frequency of
     * nodes in bins follows a Poisson distribution
     * (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution) with a
     * parameter of about 0.5 on average for the default resizing
     * threshold of 0.75, although with a large variance because of
     * resizing granularity. Ignoring variance, the expected
     * occurrences of list size k are (exp(-0.5) * pow(0.5, k) /
     * factorial(k)). The first values are:
     *
     * 0:    0.60653066
     * 1:    0.30326533
     * 2:    0.07581633
     * 3:    0.01263606
     * 4:    0.00157952
     * 5:    0.00015795
     * 6:    0.00001316
     * 7:    0.00000094
     * 8:    0.00000006
     * more: less than 1 in ten million
     *
     * The root of a tree bin is normally its first node.  However,
     * sometimes (currently only upon Iterator.remove), the root might
     * be elsewhere, but can be recovered following parent links
     * (method TreeNode.root()).
     *
     * All applicable internal methods accept a hash code as an
     * argument (as normally supplied from a public method), allowing
     * them to call each other without recomputing user hashCodes.
     * Most internal methods also accept a "tab" argument, that is
     * normally the current table, but may be a new or old one when
     * resizing or converting.
     *
     * When bin lists are treeified, split, or untreeified, we keep
     * them in the same relative access/traversal order (i.e., field
     * Node.next) to better preserve locality, and to slightly
     * simplify handling of splits and traversals that invoke
     * iterator.remove. When using comparators on insertion, to keep a
     * total ordering (or as close as is required here) across
     * rebalancings, we compare classes and identityHashCodes as
     * tie-breakers.
     *
     * The use and transitions among plain vs tree modes is
     * complicated by the existence of subclass LinkedHashMap. See
     * below for hook methods defined to be invoked upon insertion,
     * removal and access that allow LinkedHashMap internals to
     * otherwise remain independent of these mechanics. (This also
     * requires that a map instance be passed to some utility methods
     * that may create new nodes.)
     *
     * The concurrent-programming-like SSA-based coding style helps
     * avoid aliasing errors amid all of the twisty pointer operations.
     */

看不懂没关系，听我bb

首先出结论：和hashcode碰撞次数的泊松分布有关，主要是为了寻找一种时间和空间的平衡。


红黑树中的TreeNode是链表中的Node所占空间的2倍，虽然红黑树的查找效率为o(logN)，要优于链表的o(N)，但是当链表长度比较小的时候，即使全部遍历，时间复杂度也不会太高。固，要寻找一种时间和空间的平衡，即在链表长度达到一个阈值之后再转换为红黑树。

之所以是8

，是因为Java的源码贡献者在进行大量实验发现，hash碰撞发生8次的概率已经降低到了0.00000006，几乎为不可能事件，如果真的碰撞发生了8次，那么这个时候说明由于元素本身和hash函数的原因，此次操作的hash碰撞的可能性非常大了，后序可能还会继续发生hash碰撞。所以，这个时候，就应该将链表转换为红黑树了，也就是为什么链表转红黑树的阈值是8。

最后

，红黑树转链表的阈值为6，主要是因为，如果也将该阈值设置于8，那么当hash碰撞在8时，会反生链表和红黑树的不停相互激荡转换，白白浪费资源。

写在后面

可以看到整个Java语言的严谨性，也可以同时体会到整个宏观的数学体系对于Java语言的重要性。