Differences between HashMap and Hashtable?
What are the differences between a HashMap
and a Hashtable
in Java?
Which is more efficient for non-threaded applications?
java collections hashmap hashtable
add a comment |
What are the differences between a HashMap
and a Hashtable
in Java?
Which is more efficient for non-threaded applications?
java collections hashmap hashtable
5
HashTable is obsolete in Java 1.7 and it is recommended to use ConcurrentMap implementation
– MissFiona
Apr 9 '17 at 22:10
add a comment |
What are the differences between a HashMap
and a Hashtable
in Java?
Which is more efficient for non-threaded applications?
java collections hashmap hashtable
What are the differences between a HashMap
and a Hashtable
in Java?
Which is more efficient for non-threaded applications?
java collections hashmap hashtable
java collections hashmap hashtable
edited Jul 21 '18 at 12:13
Andrey Tyukin
27k42349
27k42349
asked Sep 2 '08 at 20:12
dmanxiii
20k92823
20k92823
5
HashTable is obsolete in Java 1.7 and it is recommended to use ConcurrentMap implementation
– MissFiona
Apr 9 '17 at 22:10
add a comment |
5
HashTable is obsolete in Java 1.7 and it is recommended to use ConcurrentMap implementation
– MissFiona
Apr 9 '17 at 22:10
5
5
HashTable is obsolete in Java 1.7 and it is recommended to use ConcurrentMap implementation
– MissFiona
Apr 9 '17 at 22:10
HashTable is obsolete in Java 1.7 and it is recommended to use ConcurrentMap implementation
– MissFiona
Apr 9 '17 at 22:10
add a comment |
34 Answers
34
active
oldest
votes
1 2
next
There are several differences between HashMap
and Hashtable
in Java:
Hashtable
is synchronized, whereasHashMap
is not. This makesHashMap
better for non-threaded applications, as unsynchronized Objects typically perform better than synchronized ones.Hashtable
does not allownull
keys or values.HashMap
allows onenull
key and any number ofnull
values.One of HashMap's subclasses is
LinkedHashMap
, so in the event that you'd want predictable iteration order (which is insertion order by default), you could easily swap out theHashMap
for aLinkedHashMap
. This wouldn't be as easy if you were usingHashtable
.
Since synchronization is not an issue for you, I'd recommend HashMap
. If synchronization becomes an issue, you may also look at ConcurrentHashMap
.
52
If you want to make a HashMap thread-safe, useCollections.synchronizedMap()
.
– Rok Strniša
Nov 22 '11 at 18:48
213
I would also comment that the naive approach to thread-safety inHashtable
("synchronizing every method should take care of any concurrency problems!") makes it very much worse for threaded applications. You're better off externally synchronizing aHashMap
(and thinking about the consequences), or using aConcurrentMap
implementation (and exploiting its extended API for concurrency). Bottom line: the only reason to useHashtable
is when a legacy API (from ca. 1996) requires it.
– erickson
Mar 16 '12 at 17:19
6
HashMap gives flexibility to programmer to write threadSafe code when they actually use it. It happened rarely that I needed a thread safe collection like ConcurrentHashMap or HashTable. What I needed is certain set of functions or certain statements in a synchronized block to be threadsafe.
– Gaurava Agarwal
Jun 27 '16 at 9:00
Hashtable is obsolete and we are using HashMap for non thread safe environment. If you need thread safety then you can use Collections.synchronizedMap() or use ConcurrentHashMap which is more efficient that hashtable.
– Maneesh Kumar
Mar 30 '18 at 3:45
It's obsolete but not deprecated and I'm wondering why this is. I'm guessing removing this class (and Vector for the same reasons) would break too much existing code and annotating with @Deprecated would imply an intention to remove the code, which apparently is not there.
– Jilles van Gurp
May 19 '18 at 8:11
|
show 1 more comment
Note, that a lot of the answers state that Hashtable is synchronised. In practice this buys you very little. The synchronization is on the accessor / mutator methods will stop two threads adding or removing from the map concurrently, but in the real world you will often need additional synchronisation.
A very common idiom is to "check then put" - i.e. look for an entry in the Map, and add it if it does not already exist. This is not in any way an atomic operation whether you use Hashtable or HashMap.
An equivalently synchronised HashMap can be obtained by:
Collections.synchronizedMap(myMap);
But to correctly implement this logic you need additional synchronisation of the form:
synchronized(myMap) {
if (!myMap.containsKey("tomato"))
myMap.put("tomato", "red");
}
Even iterating over a Hashtable's entries (or a HashMap obtained by Collections.synchronizedMap) is not thread safe unless you also guard the Map from being modified through additional synchronization.
Implementations of the ConcurrentMap interface (for example ConcurrentHashMap) solve some of this by including thread safe check-then-act semantics such as:
ConcurrentMap.putIfAbsent(key, value);
46
Also note that if a HashMap is modified, iterators pointing to it are rendered invalid.
– Chris K
Apr 22 '09 at 22:03
18
Iterator will throw ConcurrentModificationException, right?
– Bhushan
Jun 30 '11 at 2:26
3
So is there any difference between synchronized(myMap) {...} and ConcurrentHashMap in terms of thread safe?
– telebog
Nov 11 '11 at 16:48
3
Very true, I tried to explain same here..lovehasija.com/2012/08/16/…
– Love Hasija
Sep 20 '12 at 10:21
@Bhushan: It will throw on a best-effort basis, this is not guaranteed behavior: docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/HashMap.html
– Matt Stephenson
Oct 3 '13 at 18:49
|
show 1 more comment
Hashtable
is considered legacy code. There's nothing about Hashtable
that can't be done using HashMap
or derivations of HashMap
, so for new code, I don't see any justification for going back to Hashtable
.
92
From Hashtable javadoc (emphasis added): "As of the Java 2 platform v1.2, this class was retrofitted to implement the Map interface, making it a member of the Java Collections Framework." However, you are right that it is legacy code. All the benefits of synchronization can be obtained more efficiently with Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap). (Similar to Vector being a legacy version of Collections.synchronizedList(ArrayList).)
– Kip
Jan 19 '10 at 22:09
15
@aberrant80: unfortunately you have no choice between the two and have to use Hashtable when programming for J2ME...
– pwes
Jan 12 '12 at 8:13
5
this answer should be deleted. it contains incorrect information and has a lot of upvotes.
– anon58192932
Jan 22 '16 at 20:40
@anon58192932 Is it possible to edit the question to fix it?
– GC_
Oct 14 '16 at 15:39
1
We have to get the attention of the poster @aberrant80 or an admin by flagging. Flagging could help - will try that now.
– anon58192932
Oct 14 '16 at 20:05
add a comment |
This question is often asked in interview to check whether candidate understands correct usage of collection classes and is aware of alternative solutions available.
- The HashMap class is roughly equivalent to Hashtable, except that it is non synchronized and permits nulls. (HashMap allows null values as key and value whereas Hashtable doesn't allow nulls).
- HashMap does not guarantee that the order of the map will remain constant over time.
- HashMap is non synchronized whereas Hashtable is synchronized.
- Iterator in the HashMap is fail-safe while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator's own remove() method. But this is not a guaranteed behavior and will be done by JVM on best effort.
Note on Some Important Terms
- Synchronized means only one thread can modify a hash table at one point of time. Basically, it means that any thread before performing an update on a hashtable will have to acquire a lock on the object while others will wait for lock to be released.
- Fail-safe is relevant from the context of iterators. If an iterator has been created on a collection object and some other thread tries to modify the collection object "structurally", a concurrent modification exception will be thrown. It is possible for other threads though to invoke "set" method since it doesn't modify the collection "structurally". However, if prior to calling "set", the collection has been modified structurally, "IllegalArgumentException" will be thrown.
- Structurally modification means deleting or inserting element which could effectively change the structure of map.
HashMap can be synchronized by
Map m = Collections.synchronizeMap(hashMap);
Map provides Collection views instead of direct support for iteration
via Enumeration objects. Collection views greatly enhance the
expressiveness of the interface, as discussed later in this section.
Map allows you to iterate over keys, values, or key-value pairs;
Hashtable does not provide the third option. Map provides a safe way
to remove entries in the midst of iteration; Hashtable did not.
Finally, Map fixes a minor deficiency in the Hashtable interface.
Hashtable has a method called contains, which returns true if the
Hashtable contains a given value. Given its name, you'd expect this
method to return true if the Hashtable contained a given key, because
the key is the primary access mechanism for a Hashtable. The Map
interface eliminates this source of confusion by renaming the method
containsValue. Also, this improves the interface's consistency —
containsValue parallels containsKey.
The Map Interface
18
This answer contains at least 2 significant factual inaccuracies. It certainly DOES NOT deserve this many upvotes.
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:05
55
1) HashMap's iterators are NOT fail-safe. They are fail-fast. There is a huge difference in meaning between those two terms. 2) There is noset
operation on aHashMap
. 3) Theput(...)
operation won't throwIllegalArgumentException
if there was a previous change. 4) The fail-fast behaviour ofHashMap
also occurs if you change a mapping. 5) The fail-fast behaviour is guaranteed. (What is not guaranteed is the behaviour of aHashTable
if you make a concurrent modification. The actual behaviour is ... unpredictable.)
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:14
24
6)Hashtable
does not guarantee that the order of map elements will be stable over time either. (You are perhaps confusingHashtable
withLinkedHashMap
.)
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:16
3
Anyone else really worried that students these days are getting the errant idea that getting "synchronized versions" of the collections somehow means that you don't have to externally synchronize compound operations? My favorite example of this beingthing.set(thing.get() + 1);
which more often than not catches newbies by surprise as completely unprotected, especially if theget()
andset()
are synchronized methods. Many of them are expecting magic.
– user4229245
May 4 '15 at 22:26
Iterators on HashMap is not fail-safe
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 1:56
add a comment |
HashMap
: An implementation of the Map
interface that uses hash codes to index an array.
Hashtable
: Hi, 1998 called. They want their collections API back.
Seriously though, you're better off staying away from Hashtable
altogether. For single-threaded apps, you don't need the extra overhead of synchronisation. For highly concurrent apps, the paranoid synchronisation might lead to starvation, deadlocks, or unnecessary garbage collection pauses. Like Tim Howland pointed out, you might use ConcurrentHashMap
instead.
This actually makes sense. ConcurrentHashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier.
– prap19
Nov 19 '11 at 14:55
1
Is this specific to Java or all the hash map implementation.
– Goutam
Sep 1 '18 at 19:23
add a comment |
Keep in mind that HashTable
was legacy class before Java Collections Framework (JCF) was introduced and was later retrofitted to implement the Map
interface. So was Vector
and Stack
.
Therefore, always stay away from them in new code since there always better alternative in the JCF as others had pointed out.
Here is the Java collection cheat sheet that you will find useful. Notice the gray block contains the legacy class HashTable,Vector and Stack.
add a comment |
In addition to what izb said, HashMap
allows null values, whereas the Hashtable
does not.
Also note that Hashtable
extends the Dictionary
class, which as the Javadocs state, is obsolete and has been replaced by the Map
interface.
3
but that does not make the HashTable obsolete does it?
– Pacerier
Nov 1 '11 at 20:22
add a comment |
Take a look at this chart. It provides comparisons between different data structures along with HashMap and Hashtable. The comparison is precise, clear and easy to understand.
Java Collection Matrix
thanks, now I know what to choose in my scenario.
– Well Smith
Apr 15 '18 at 3:17
add a comment |
There is many good answer already posted. I'm adding few new points and summarizing it.
HashMap
and Hashtable
both are used to store data in key and value form. Both are using hashing technique to store unique keys.
But there are many differences between HashMap and Hashtable classes that are given below.
HashMap
HashMap
is non synchronized. It is not-thread safe and can't be shared between many threads without proper synchronization code.
HashMap
allows one null key and multiple null values.
HashMap
is a new class introduced in JDK 1.2.
HashMap
is fast.- We can make the
HashMap
as synchronized by calling this codeMap m = Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap);
HashMap
is traversed by Iterator.- Iterator in
HashMap
is fail-fast.
HashMap
inherits AbstractMap class.
Hashtable
Hashtable
is synchronized. It is thread-safe and can be shared with many threads.
Hashtable
doesn't allow any null key or value.
Hashtable
is a legacy class.
Hashtable
is slow.
Hashtable
is internally synchronized and can't be unsynchronized.
Hashtable
is traversed by Enumerator and Iterator.- Enumerator in
Hashtable
is not fail-fast.
Hashtable
inherits Dictionary class.
Further reading What is difference between HashMap and Hashtable in Java?
Pretty much covered in this answer (dupicate of )- stackoverflow.com/a/39785829/432903.
– prayagupd
Mar 13 '17 at 2:36
Why do you say ~"Hashtable is a legacy class"? Where is the supporting documentation for that.
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:29
2
@IgorGanapolsky you may read this - stackoverflow.com/questions/21086307/…
– roottraveller
Mar 29 '17 at 9:48
Maintaining HashMap is costly than TreeMap. Because HashMap creates unnecessary extra buckets.
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 2:05
add a comment |
Hashtable
is similar to the HashMap
and has a similar interface. It is recommended that you use HashMap
, unless you require support for legacy applications or you need synchronisation, as the Hashtables
methods are synchronised. So in your case as you are not multi-threading, HashMaps
are your best bet.
add a comment |
Another key difference between hashtable and hashmap is that Iterator in the HashMap is fail-fast while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator's own remove() method. But this is not a guaranteed behavior and will be done by JVM on best effort."
My source: http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2010/10/difference-between-hashmap-and.html
add a comment |
Beside all the other important aspects already mentioned here, Collections API (e.g. Map interface) is being modified all the time to conform to the "latest and greatest" additions to Java spec.
For example, compare Java 5 Map iterating:
for (Elem elem : map.keys()) {
elem.doSth();
}
versus the old Hashtable approach:
for (Enumeration en = htable.keys(); en.hasMoreElements(); ) {
Elem elem = (Elem) en.nextElement();
elem.doSth();
}
In Java 1.8 we are also promised to be able to construct and access HashMaps like in good old scripting languages:
Map<String,Integer> map = { "orange" : 12, "apples" : 15 };
map["apples"];
Update: No, they won't land in 1.8... :(
Are Project Coin's collection enhancements going to be in JDK8?
add a comment |
HashTable is synchronized, if you are using it in a single thread you can use HashMap, which is an unsynchronized version. Unsynchronized objects are often a little more performant. By the way if multiple threads access a HashMap concurrently, and at least one of the threads modifies the map structurally, it must be synchronized externally.
Youn can wrap a unsynchronized map in a synchronized one using :
Map m = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap(...));
HashTable can only contain non-null object as a key or as a value. HashMap can contain one null key and null values.
The iterators returned by Map are fail-fast, if the map is structurally modified at any time after the iterator is created, in any way except through the iterator's own remove method, the iterator will throw a
ConcurrentModificationException
. Thus, in the face of concurrent modification, the iterator fails quickly and cleanly, rather than risking arbitrary, non-deterministic behavior at an undetermined time in the future. Whereas the Enumerations returned by Hashtable's keys and elements methods are not fail-fast.HashTable and HashMap are member of the Java Collections Framework (since Java 2 platform v1.2, HashTable was retrofitted to implement the Map interface).
HashTable is considered legacy code, the documentation advise to use ConcurrentHashMap in place of Hashtable if a thread-safe highly-concurrent implementation is desired.
HashMap doesn't guarantee the order in which elements are returned. For HashTable I guess it's the same but I'm not entirely sure, I don't find ressource that clearly state that.
add a comment |
HashMap
and Hashtable
have significant algorithmic differences as well. No one has mentioned this before so that's why I am bringing it up. HashMap
will construct a hash table with power of two size, increase it dynamically such that you have at most about eight elements (collisions) in any bucket and will stir the elements very well for general element types. However, the Hashtable
implementation provides better and finer control over the hashing if you know what you are doing, namely you can fix the table size using e.g. the closest prime number to your values domain size and this will result in better performance than HashMap i.e. less collisions for some cases.
Separate from the obvious differences discussed extensively in this question, I see the Hashtable as a "manual drive" car where you have better control over the hashing and the HashMap as the "automatic drive" counterpart that will generally perform well.
add a comment |
Hashtable is synchronized, whereas HashMap isn't. That makes Hashtable slower than Hashmap.
For non-threaded apps, use HashMap since they are otherwise the same in terms of functionality.
add a comment |
Based on the info here, I'd recommend going with HashMap. I think the biggest advantage is that Java will prevent you from modifying it while you are iterating over it, unless you do it through the iterator.
5
It doesn't actually prevent it, it just detects it and throws an error.
– Bart van Heukelom
Dec 18 '10 at 1:44
1
I'm pretty sure it will throw a ConncurrentModificationException before the underlying collection is modified, though I could be wrong.
– pkaeding
Jan 1 '11 at 1:46
It will attempt to detect concurrent modification and throw an exception. But if you're doing anything with threads, it can't make any promises. Absolutely anything can happen, including breakage.
– cHao
Apr 18 '11 at 14:03
add a comment |
A Collection
— sometimes called a container — is simply an object that groups multiple elements into a single unit. Collection
s are used to store, retrieve, manipulate, and communicate aggregate data. A collections framework W is a unified architecture for representing and manipulating collections.
The HashMap
JDK1.2
and Hashtable JDK1.0
, both are used to represent a group of objects that are represented in <Key, Value>
pair. Each <Key, Value>
pair is called Entry
object. The collection of Entries is referred by the object of HashMap
and Hashtable
. Keys in a collection must be unique or distinctive. [as they are used to retrieve a mapped value a particular key. values in a collection can be duplicated.]
« Superclass, Legacy and Collection Framework member
Hashtable is a legacy class introduced in JDK1.0
, which is a subclass of Dictionary class. From JDK1.2
Hashtable is re-engineered to implement the Map interface to make a member of collection framework. HashMap is a member of Java Collection Framework right from the beginning of its introduction in JDK1.2
. HashMap is the subclass of the AbstractMap class.
public class Hashtable<K,V> extends Dictionary<K,V> implements Map<K,V>, Cloneable, Serializable { ... }
public class HashMap<K,V> extends AbstractMap<K,V> implements Map<K,V>, Cloneable, Serializable { ... }
« Initial capacity and Load factor
The capacity is the number of buckets in the hash table, and the initial capacity is simply the capacity at the time the hash table is created. Note that the hash table is open: in the case of a "hash
collision
", a single bucket stores multiple entries, which must be searched sequentially. The load factor is a measure of how full the hash table is allowed to get before its capacity is automatically increased.
HashMap constructs an empty hash table with the default initial capacity (16) and the default load factor (0.75). Where as Hashtable constructs empty hashtable with a default initial capacity (11) and load factor/fill ratio (0.75).
« Structural modification in case of hash collision
HashMap
, Hashtable
in case of hash collisions they store the map entries in linked lists. From Java8 for HashMap
if hash bucket grows beyond a certain threshold, that bucket will switch from linked list of entries to a balanced tree
. which improve worst-case performance from O(n) to O(log n). While converting the list to binary tree, hashcode is used as a branching variable. If there are two different hashcodes in the same bucket, one is considered bigger and goes to the right of the tree and other one to the left. But when both the hashcodes are equal, HashMap
assumes that the keys are comparable, and compares the key to determine the direction so that some order can be maintained. It is a good practice to make the keys of HashMap
comparable. On adding entries if bucket size reaches TREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 8
convert linked list of entries to a balanced tree, on removing entries less than TREEIFY_THRESHOLD
and at most UNTREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 6
will reconvert balanced tree to linked list of entries. Java 8 SRC, stackpost
« Collection-view iteration, Fail-Fast and Fail-Safe
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| | Iterator | Enumeration |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Hashtable | fail-fast | safe |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| HashMap | fail-fast | fail-fast |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| ConcurrentHashMap | safe | safe |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
Iterator
is a fail-fast in nature. i.e it throws ConcurrentModificationException if a collection is modified while iterating other than it’s own remove() method. Where as Enumeration
is fail-safe in nature. It doesn’t throw any exceptions if a collection is modified while iterating.
According to Java API Docs, Iterator is always preferred over the Enumeration.
NOTE: The functionality of Enumeration interface is duplicated by the Iterator interface. In addition, Iterator adds an optional remove operation, and has shorter method names. New implementations should consider using Iterator in preference to Enumeration.
In Java 5 introduced ConcurrentMap Interface: ConcurrentHashMap
- a highly concurrent, high-performance ConcurrentMap
implementation backed by a hash table. This implementation never blocks when performing retrievals and allows the client to select the concurrency level for updates. It is intended as a drop-in replacement for Hashtable
: in addition to implementing ConcurrentMap
, it supports all of the "legacy" methods peculiar to Hashtable
.
Each
HashMapEntry
s value is volatile thereby ensuring fine grain consistency for contended modifications and subsequent reads; each read reflects the most recently completed updateIterators and Enumerations are Fail Safe - reflecting the state at some point since the creation of iterator/enumeration; this allows for simultaneous reads and modifications at the cost of reduced consistency. They do not throw ConcurrentModificationException. However, iterators are designed to be used by only one thread at a time.
Like
Hashtable
but unlikeHashMap
, this class does not allow null to be used as a key or value.
public static void main(String args) {
//HashMap<String, Integer> hash = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
Hashtable<String, Integer> hash = new Hashtable<String, Integer>();
//ConcurrentHashMap<String, Integer> hash = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
new Thread() {
@Override public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 10; i < 20; i++) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T1 :- Key"+i);
hash.put("Key"+i, i);
}
System.out.println( System.identityHashCode( hash ) );
} catch ( Exception e ) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
new Thread() {
@Override public void run() {
try {
sleepThread(5);
// ConcurrentHashMap traverse using Iterator, Enumeration is Fail-Safe.
// Hashtable traverse using Enumeration is Fail-Safe, Iterator is Fail-Fast.
for (Enumeration<String> e = hash.keys(); e.hasMoreElements(); ) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T2 : "+ e.nextElement());
}
// HashMap traverse using Iterator, Enumeration is Fail-Fast.
/*
for (Iterator< Entry<String, Integer> > it = hash.entrySet().iterator(); it.hasNext(); ) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T2 : "+ it.next());
// ConcurrentModificationException at java.util.Hashtable$Enumerator.next
}
*/
/*
Set< Entry<String, Integer> > entrySet = hash.entrySet();
Iterator< Entry<String, Integer> > it = entrySet.iterator();
Enumeration<Entry<String, Integer>> entryEnumeration = Collections.enumeration( entrySet );
while( entryEnumeration.hasMoreElements() ) {
sleepThread(1);
Entry<String, Integer> nextElement = entryEnumeration.nextElement();
System.out.println("T2 : "+ nextElement.getKey() +" : "+ nextElement.getValue() );
//java.util.ConcurrentModificationException at java.util.HashMap$HashIterator.nextNode
// at java.util.HashMap$EntryIterator.next
// at java.util.Collections$3.nextElement
}
*/
} catch ( Exception e ) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
Map<String, String> unmodifiableMap = Collections.unmodifiableMap( map );
try {
unmodifiableMap.put("key4", "unmodifiableMap");
} catch (java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException e) {
System.err.println("UnsupportedOperationException : "+ e.getMessage() );
}
}
static void sleepThread( int sec ) {
try {
Thread.sleep( 1000 * sec );
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
« Null Keys And Null Values
HashMap
allows maximum one null key and any number of null values. Where as Hashtable
doesn’t allow even a single null key and null value, if the key or value null is then it throws NullPointerException. Example
« Synchronized, Thread Safe
Hashtable
is internally synchronized. Therefore, it is very much safe to use Hashtable
in multi threaded applications. Where as HashMap
is not internally synchronized. Therefore, it is not safe to use HashMap
in multi threaded applications without external synchronization. You can externally synchronize HashMap
using Collections.synchronizedMap()
method.
« Performance
As Hashtable
is internally synchronized, this makes Hashtable
slightly slower than the HashMap
.
@See
- A red–black tree is a kind of self-balancing binary search tree
- Performance Improvement for
HashMap
in Java 8
add a comment |
For threaded apps, you can often get away with ConcurrentHashMap- depends on your performance requirements.
add a comment |
Apart from the differences already mentioned, it should be noted that since Java 8, HashMap
dynamically replaces the Nodes (linked list) used in each bucket with TreeNodes (red-black tree), so that even if high hash collisions exist, the worst case when searching is
O(log(n)) for HashMap
Vs O(n) in Hashtable
.
*The aforementioned improvement has not been applied to Hashtable
yet, but only to HashMap
, LinkedHashMap
, and ConcurrentHashMap
.
FYI, currently,
TREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 8
: if a bucket contains more than 8 nodes, the linked list is transformed into a balanced tree.
UNTREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 6
: when a bucket becomes too small (due to removal or resizing) the tree is converted back to linked list.
add a comment |
1.Hashmap
and HashTable
both store key and value.
2.Hashmap
can store one key as null
. Hashtable
can't store null
.
3.HashMap
is not synchronized but Hashtable
is synchronized.
4.HashMap
can be synchronized with Collection.SyncronizedMap(map)
Map hashmap = new HashMap();
Map map = Collections.SyncronizedMap(hashmap);
1
the 4th diff is nice, no one mentioned it, thanks
– Rushabh Shah
Aug 10 '15 at 4:06
add a comment |
There are 5 basic differentiations with HashTable and HashMaps.
- Maps allows you to iterate and retrieve keys, values, and both key-value pairs as well, Where HashTable don't have all this capability.
- In Hashtable there is a function contains(), which is very confusing to use. Because the meaning of contains is slightly deviating. Whether it means contains key or contains value? tough to understand. Same thing in Maps we have ContainsKey() and ContainsValue() functions, which are very easy to understand.
- In hashmap you can remove element while iterating, safely. where as it is not possible in hashtables.
- HashTables are by default synchronized, so it can be used with multiple threads easily. Where as HashMaps are not synchronized by default, so can be used with only single thread. But you can still convert HashMap to synchronized by using Collections util class's synchronizedMap(Map m) function.
- HashTable won't allow null keys or null values. Where as HashMap allows one null key, and multiple null values.
add a comment |
My small contribution :
First and most significant different between
Hashtable
andHashMap
is that,HashMap
is not thread-safe whileHashtable
is a thread-safe collection.
Second important difference between
Hashtable
andHashMap
is performance, sinceHashMap
is not synchronized it perform better thanHashtable
.
Third difference on
Hashtable
vsHashMap
is thatHashtable
is obsolete class and you should be usingConcurrentHashMap
in place ofHashtable
in Java.
add a comment |
HashTable is a legacy class in the jdk that shouldn't be used anymore. Replace usages of it with ConcurrentHashMap. If you don't require thread safety, use HashMap which isn't threadsafe but faster and uses less memory.
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:06
Because I thought the other answers, at the time, didn't dismiss HashTable but explained that it was threadsafe. The truth is that as soon as you see HashTable in code, you should replace it with ConcurrentHashMap without skipping a beat. And if thread safety is not a concern then HashMap can be used to improve performance a bit.
– jontejj
Aug 7 '15 at 8:29
add a comment |
1)Hashtable is synchronized whereas hashmap is not.
2)Another difference is that iterator in the HashMap is fail-safe while the enumerator for the Hashtable isn't. If you change the map while iterating, you'll know.
3)HashMap permits null values in it, while Hashtable doesn't.
3
HashMap iterator is fail-fast not fail-safe. Thats why we have ConcurrentHashMap that allows modification while iteration. Check this post journaldev.com/122/…
– Pankaj
Jan 28 '13 at 21:13
3
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
add a comment |
Hashtable:
Hashtable is a data structure that retains values of key-value pair. It doesn’t allow null for both the keys and the values. You will get a NullPointerException
if you add null value. It is synchronized. So it comes with its cost. Only one thread can access HashTable at a particular time.
Example :
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Hashtable;
public class TestClass {
public static void main(String args[ ]) {
Map<Integer,String> states= new Hashtable<Integer,String>();
states.put(1, "INDIA");
states.put(2, "USA");
states.put(3, null); //will throw NullPointerEcxeption at runtime
System.out.println(states.get(1));
System.out.println(states.get(2));
// System.out.println(states.get(3));
}
}
HashMap:
HashMap is like Hashtable but it also accepts key value pair. It allows null for both the keys and the values. Its performance better is better than HashTable
, because it is unsynchronized
.
Example:
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
public class TestClass {
public static void main(String args[ ]) {
Map<Integer,String> states = new HashMap<Integer,String>();
states.put(1, "INDIA");
states.put(2, "USA");
states.put(3, null); // Okay
states.put(null,"UK");
System.out.println(states.get(1));
System.out.println(states.get(2));
System.out.println(states.get(3));
}
}
add a comment |
HashMap and HashTable
- Some important points about HashMap and HashTable.
please read below details.
1) Hashtable and Hashmap implement the java.util.Map interface
2) Both Hashmap and Hashtable is the hash based collection. and working on hashing.
so these are similarity of HashMap and HashTable.
- What is the difference between HashMap and HashTable?
1) First difference is HashMap is not thread safe While HashTable is ThreadSafe
2) HashMap is performance wise better because it is not thread safe. while Hashtable performance wise is not better because it is thread safe. so multiple thread can not access Hashtable at the same time.
1
Down-voted because this answer is not correct in some aspects. Hashtable does not implement the Map interface, but only extends the Dictionary class, which is obsolete.
– Yannis Sermetziadis
Oct 25 '17 at 5:42
add a comment |
HashMap: It is a class available inside java.util package and it is used to store the element in key and value format.
Hashtable: It is a legacy class which is being recognized inside collection framework.
4
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
add a comment |
HashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier
2
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:03
2
What does ~"freedom of synchronization" mean?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:03
add a comment |
HashMap
is emulated and therefore usable in GWT client code
whereas Hashtable
is not.
Is that a comprehensive description of differences between the two apis?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:04
Yes (sic!). That's all GWT developers need to know about it.
– pong
Mar 24 '17 at 19:41
add a comment |
Synchronization or Thread Safe :
Hash Map is not synchronized hence it is not thred safe and it cannot be shared between multiple threads without proper synchronized block whereas, Hashtable is synchronized and hence it is thread safe.
Null keys and null values :
HashMap allows one null key and any number of null values.Hashtable does not allow null keys or values.
Iterating the values:
Iterator in the HashMap is a fail-fast iterator while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator’s own remove() method.
Superclass and Legacy :
HashMap is subclass of AbstractMap class whereas Hashtable is subclass of Dictionary class.
Performance :
As HashMap is not synchronized it is faster as compared to Hashtable.
Refer http://modernpathshala.com/Article/1020/difference-between-hashmap-and-hashtable-in-java for examples and interview questions and quiz related to Java collection
add a comment |
1 2
next
protected by Community♦ Mar 16 '12 at 19:13
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
34 Answers
34
active
oldest
votes
34 Answers
34
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
1 2
next
There are several differences between HashMap
and Hashtable
in Java:
Hashtable
is synchronized, whereasHashMap
is not. This makesHashMap
better for non-threaded applications, as unsynchronized Objects typically perform better than synchronized ones.Hashtable
does not allownull
keys or values.HashMap
allows onenull
key and any number ofnull
values.One of HashMap's subclasses is
LinkedHashMap
, so in the event that you'd want predictable iteration order (which is insertion order by default), you could easily swap out theHashMap
for aLinkedHashMap
. This wouldn't be as easy if you were usingHashtable
.
Since synchronization is not an issue for you, I'd recommend HashMap
. If synchronization becomes an issue, you may also look at ConcurrentHashMap
.
52
If you want to make a HashMap thread-safe, useCollections.synchronizedMap()
.
– Rok Strniša
Nov 22 '11 at 18:48
213
I would also comment that the naive approach to thread-safety inHashtable
("synchronizing every method should take care of any concurrency problems!") makes it very much worse for threaded applications. You're better off externally synchronizing aHashMap
(and thinking about the consequences), or using aConcurrentMap
implementation (and exploiting its extended API for concurrency). Bottom line: the only reason to useHashtable
is when a legacy API (from ca. 1996) requires it.
– erickson
Mar 16 '12 at 17:19
6
HashMap gives flexibility to programmer to write threadSafe code when they actually use it. It happened rarely that I needed a thread safe collection like ConcurrentHashMap or HashTable. What I needed is certain set of functions or certain statements in a synchronized block to be threadsafe.
– Gaurava Agarwal
Jun 27 '16 at 9:00
Hashtable is obsolete and we are using HashMap for non thread safe environment. If you need thread safety then you can use Collections.synchronizedMap() or use ConcurrentHashMap which is more efficient that hashtable.
– Maneesh Kumar
Mar 30 '18 at 3:45
It's obsolete but not deprecated and I'm wondering why this is. I'm guessing removing this class (and Vector for the same reasons) would break too much existing code and annotating with @Deprecated would imply an intention to remove the code, which apparently is not there.
– Jilles van Gurp
May 19 '18 at 8:11
|
show 1 more comment
There are several differences between HashMap
and Hashtable
in Java:
Hashtable
is synchronized, whereasHashMap
is not. This makesHashMap
better for non-threaded applications, as unsynchronized Objects typically perform better than synchronized ones.Hashtable
does not allownull
keys or values.HashMap
allows onenull
key and any number ofnull
values.One of HashMap's subclasses is
LinkedHashMap
, so in the event that you'd want predictable iteration order (which is insertion order by default), you could easily swap out theHashMap
for aLinkedHashMap
. This wouldn't be as easy if you were usingHashtable
.
Since synchronization is not an issue for you, I'd recommend HashMap
. If synchronization becomes an issue, you may also look at ConcurrentHashMap
.
52
If you want to make a HashMap thread-safe, useCollections.synchronizedMap()
.
– Rok Strniša
Nov 22 '11 at 18:48
213
I would also comment that the naive approach to thread-safety inHashtable
("synchronizing every method should take care of any concurrency problems!") makes it very much worse for threaded applications. You're better off externally synchronizing aHashMap
(and thinking about the consequences), or using aConcurrentMap
implementation (and exploiting its extended API for concurrency). Bottom line: the only reason to useHashtable
is when a legacy API (from ca. 1996) requires it.
– erickson
Mar 16 '12 at 17:19
6
HashMap gives flexibility to programmer to write threadSafe code when they actually use it. It happened rarely that I needed a thread safe collection like ConcurrentHashMap or HashTable. What I needed is certain set of functions or certain statements in a synchronized block to be threadsafe.
– Gaurava Agarwal
Jun 27 '16 at 9:00
Hashtable is obsolete and we are using HashMap for non thread safe environment. If you need thread safety then you can use Collections.synchronizedMap() or use ConcurrentHashMap which is more efficient that hashtable.
– Maneesh Kumar
Mar 30 '18 at 3:45
It's obsolete but not deprecated and I'm wondering why this is. I'm guessing removing this class (and Vector for the same reasons) would break too much existing code and annotating with @Deprecated would imply an intention to remove the code, which apparently is not there.
– Jilles van Gurp
May 19 '18 at 8:11
|
show 1 more comment
There are several differences between HashMap
and Hashtable
in Java:
Hashtable
is synchronized, whereasHashMap
is not. This makesHashMap
better for non-threaded applications, as unsynchronized Objects typically perform better than synchronized ones.Hashtable
does not allownull
keys or values.HashMap
allows onenull
key and any number ofnull
values.One of HashMap's subclasses is
LinkedHashMap
, so in the event that you'd want predictable iteration order (which is insertion order by default), you could easily swap out theHashMap
for aLinkedHashMap
. This wouldn't be as easy if you were usingHashtable
.
Since synchronization is not an issue for you, I'd recommend HashMap
. If synchronization becomes an issue, you may also look at ConcurrentHashMap
.
There are several differences between HashMap
and Hashtable
in Java:
Hashtable
is synchronized, whereasHashMap
is not. This makesHashMap
better for non-threaded applications, as unsynchronized Objects typically perform better than synchronized ones.Hashtable
does not allownull
keys or values.HashMap
allows onenull
key and any number ofnull
values.One of HashMap's subclasses is
LinkedHashMap
, so in the event that you'd want predictable iteration order (which is insertion order by default), you could easily swap out theHashMap
for aLinkedHashMap
. This wouldn't be as easy if you were usingHashtable
.
Since synchronization is not an issue for you, I'd recommend HashMap
. If synchronization becomes an issue, you may also look at ConcurrentHashMap
.
edited Sep 13 '18 at 19:38
answered Sep 2 '08 at 23:02
Josh Brown
39.3k84576
39.3k84576
52
If you want to make a HashMap thread-safe, useCollections.synchronizedMap()
.
– Rok Strniša
Nov 22 '11 at 18:48
213
I would also comment that the naive approach to thread-safety inHashtable
("synchronizing every method should take care of any concurrency problems!") makes it very much worse for threaded applications. You're better off externally synchronizing aHashMap
(and thinking about the consequences), or using aConcurrentMap
implementation (and exploiting its extended API for concurrency). Bottom line: the only reason to useHashtable
is when a legacy API (from ca. 1996) requires it.
– erickson
Mar 16 '12 at 17:19
6
HashMap gives flexibility to programmer to write threadSafe code when they actually use it. It happened rarely that I needed a thread safe collection like ConcurrentHashMap or HashTable. What I needed is certain set of functions or certain statements in a synchronized block to be threadsafe.
– Gaurava Agarwal
Jun 27 '16 at 9:00
Hashtable is obsolete and we are using HashMap for non thread safe environment. If you need thread safety then you can use Collections.synchronizedMap() or use ConcurrentHashMap which is more efficient that hashtable.
– Maneesh Kumar
Mar 30 '18 at 3:45
It's obsolete but not deprecated and I'm wondering why this is. I'm guessing removing this class (and Vector for the same reasons) would break too much existing code and annotating with @Deprecated would imply an intention to remove the code, which apparently is not there.
– Jilles van Gurp
May 19 '18 at 8:11
|
show 1 more comment
52
If you want to make a HashMap thread-safe, useCollections.synchronizedMap()
.
– Rok Strniša
Nov 22 '11 at 18:48
213
I would also comment that the naive approach to thread-safety inHashtable
("synchronizing every method should take care of any concurrency problems!") makes it very much worse for threaded applications. You're better off externally synchronizing aHashMap
(and thinking about the consequences), or using aConcurrentMap
implementation (and exploiting its extended API for concurrency). Bottom line: the only reason to useHashtable
is when a legacy API (from ca. 1996) requires it.
– erickson
Mar 16 '12 at 17:19
6
HashMap gives flexibility to programmer to write threadSafe code when they actually use it. It happened rarely that I needed a thread safe collection like ConcurrentHashMap or HashTable. What I needed is certain set of functions or certain statements in a synchronized block to be threadsafe.
– Gaurava Agarwal
Jun 27 '16 at 9:00
Hashtable is obsolete and we are using HashMap for non thread safe environment. If you need thread safety then you can use Collections.synchronizedMap() or use ConcurrentHashMap which is more efficient that hashtable.
– Maneesh Kumar
Mar 30 '18 at 3:45
It's obsolete but not deprecated and I'm wondering why this is. I'm guessing removing this class (and Vector for the same reasons) would break too much existing code and annotating with @Deprecated would imply an intention to remove the code, which apparently is not there.
– Jilles van Gurp
May 19 '18 at 8:11
52
52
If you want to make a HashMap thread-safe, use
Collections.synchronizedMap()
.– Rok Strniša
Nov 22 '11 at 18:48
If you want to make a HashMap thread-safe, use
Collections.synchronizedMap()
.– Rok Strniša
Nov 22 '11 at 18:48
213
213
I would also comment that the naive approach to thread-safety in
Hashtable
("synchronizing every method should take care of any concurrency problems!") makes it very much worse for threaded applications. You're better off externally synchronizing a HashMap
(and thinking about the consequences), or using a ConcurrentMap
implementation (and exploiting its extended API for concurrency). Bottom line: the only reason to use Hashtable
is when a legacy API (from ca. 1996) requires it.– erickson
Mar 16 '12 at 17:19
I would also comment that the naive approach to thread-safety in
Hashtable
("synchronizing every method should take care of any concurrency problems!") makes it very much worse for threaded applications. You're better off externally synchronizing a HashMap
(and thinking about the consequences), or using a ConcurrentMap
implementation (and exploiting its extended API for concurrency). Bottom line: the only reason to use Hashtable
is when a legacy API (from ca. 1996) requires it.– erickson
Mar 16 '12 at 17:19
6
6
HashMap gives flexibility to programmer to write threadSafe code when they actually use it. It happened rarely that I needed a thread safe collection like ConcurrentHashMap or HashTable. What I needed is certain set of functions or certain statements in a synchronized block to be threadsafe.
– Gaurava Agarwal
Jun 27 '16 at 9:00
HashMap gives flexibility to programmer to write threadSafe code when they actually use it. It happened rarely that I needed a thread safe collection like ConcurrentHashMap or HashTable. What I needed is certain set of functions or certain statements in a synchronized block to be threadsafe.
– Gaurava Agarwal
Jun 27 '16 at 9:00
Hashtable is obsolete and we are using HashMap for non thread safe environment. If you need thread safety then you can use Collections.synchronizedMap() or use ConcurrentHashMap which is more efficient that hashtable.
– Maneesh Kumar
Mar 30 '18 at 3:45
Hashtable is obsolete and we are using HashMap for non thread safe environment. If you need thread safety then you can use Collections.synchronizedMap() or use ConcurrentHashMap which is more efficient that hashtable.
– Maneesh Kumar
Mar 30 '18 at 3:45
It's obsolete but not deprecated and I'm wondering why this is. I'm guessing removing this class (and Vector for the same reasons) would break too much existing code and annotating with @Deprecated would imply an intention to remove the code, which apparently is not there.
– Jilles van Gurp
May 19 '18 at 8:11
It's obsolete but not deprecated and I'm wondering why this is. I'm guessing removing this class (and Vector for the same reasons) would break too much existing code and annotating with @Deprecated would imply an intention to remove the code, which apparently is not there.
– Jilles van Gurp
May 19 '18 at 8:11
|
show 1 more comment
Note, that a lot of the answers state that Hashtable is synchronised. In practice this buys you very little. The synchronization is on the accessor / mutator methods will stop two threads adding or removing from the map concurrently, but in the real world you will often need additional synchronisation.
A very common idiom is to "check then put" - i.e. look for an entry in the Map, and add it if it does not already exist. This is not in any way an atomic operation whether you use Hashtable or HashMap.
An equivalently synchronised HashMap can be obtained by:
Collections.synchronizedMap(myMap);
But to correctly implement this logic you need additional synchronisation of the form:
synchronized(myMap) {
if (!myMap.containsKey("tomato"))
myMap.put("tomato", "red");
}
Even iterating over a Hashtable's entries (or a HashMap obtained by Collections.synchronizedMap) is not thread safe unless you also guard the Map from being modified through additional synchronization.
Implementations of the ConcurrentMap interface (for example ConcurrentHashMap) solve some of this by including thread safe check-then-act semantics such as:
ConcurrentMap.putIfAbsent(key, value);
46
Also note that if a HashMap is modified, iterators pointing to it are rendered invalid.
– Chris K
Apr 22 '09 at 22:03
18
Iterator will throw ConcurrentModificationException, right?
– Bhushan
Jun 30 '11 at 2:26
3
So is there any difference between synchronized(myMap) {...} and ConcurrentHashMap in terms of thread safe?
– telebog
Nov 11 '11 at 16:48
3
Very true, I tried to explain same here..lovehasija.com/2012/08/16/…
– Love Hasija
Sep 20 '12 at 10:21
@Bhushan: It will throw on a best-effort basis, this is not guaranteed behavior: docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/HashMap.html
– Matt Stephenson
Oct 3 '13 at 18:49
|
show 1 more comment
Note, that a lot of the answers state that Hashtable is synchronised. In practice this buys you very little. The synchronization is on the accessor / mutator methods will stop two threads adding or removing from the map concurrently, but in the real world you will often need additional synchronisation.
A very common idiom is to "check then put" - i.e. look for an entry in the Map, and add it if it does not already exist. This is not in any way an atomic operation whether you use Hashtable or HashMap.
An equivalently synchronised HashMap can be obtained by:
Collections.synchronizedMap(myMap);
But to correctly implement this logic you need additional synchronisation of the form:
synchronized(myMap) {
if (!myMap.containsKey("tomato"))
myMap.put("tomato", "red");
}
Even iterating over a Hashtable's entries (or a HashMap obtained by Collections.synchronizedMap) is not thread safe unless you also guard the Map from being modified through additional synchronization.
Implementations of the ConcurrentMap interface (for example ConcurrentHashMap) solve some of this by including thread safe check-then-act semantics such as:
ConcurrentMap.putIfAbsent(key, value);
46
Also note that if a HashMap is modified, iterators pointing to it are rendered invalid.
– Chris K
Apr 22 '09 at 22:03
18
Iterator will throw ConcurrentModificationException, right?
– Bhushan
Jun 30 '11 at 2:26
3
So is there any difference between synchronized(myMap) {...} and ConcurrentHashMap in terms of thread safe?
– telebog
Nov 11 '11 at 16:48
3
Very true, I tried to explain same here..lovehasija.com/2012/08/16/…
– Love Hasija
Sep 20 '12 at 10:21
@Bhushan: It will throw on a best-effort basis, this is not guaranteed behavior: docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/HashMap.html
– Matt Stephenson
Oct 3 '13 at 18:49
|
show 1 more comment
Note, that a lot of the answers state that Hashtable is synchronised. In practice this buys you very little. The synchronization is on the accessor / mutator methods will stop two threads adding or removing from the map concurrently, but in the real world you will often need additional synchronisation.
A very common idiom is to "check then put" - i.e. look for an entry in the Map, and add it if it does not already exist. This is not in any way an atomic operation whether you use Hashtable or HashMap.
An equivalently synchronised HashMap can be obtained by:
Collections.synchronizedMap(myMap);
But to correctly implement this logic you need additional synchronisation of the form:
synchronized(myMap) {
if (!myMap.containsKey("tomato"))
myMap.put("tomato", "red");
}
Even iterating over a Hashtable's entries (or a HashMap obtained by Collections.synchronizedMap) is not thread safe unless you also guard the Map from being modified through additional synchronization.
Implementations of the ConcurrentMap interface (for example ConcurrentHashMap) solve some of this by including thread safe check-then-act semantics such as:
ConcurrentMap.putIfAbsent(key, value);
Note, that a lot of the answers state that Hashtable is synchronised. In practice this buys you very little. The synchronization is on the accessor / mutator methods will stop two threads adding or removing from the map concurrently, but in the real world you will often need additional synchronisation.
A very common idiom is to "check then put" - i.e. look for an entry in the Map, and add it if it does not already exist. This is not in any way an atomic operation whether you use Hashtable or HashMap.
An equivalently synchronised HashMap can be obtained by:
Collections.synchronizedMap(myMap);
But to correctly implement this logic you need additional synchronisation of the form:
synchronized(myMap) {
if (!myMap.containsKey("tomato"))
myMap.put("tomato", "red");
}
Even iterating over a Hashtable's entries (or a HashMap obtained by Collections.synchronizedMap) is not thread safe unless you also guard the Map from being modified through additional synchronization.
Implementations of the ConcurrentMap interface (for example ConcurrentHashMap) solve some of this by including thread safe check-then-act semantics such as:
ConcurrentMap.putIfAbsent(key, value);
edited Dec 5 '14 at 14:45


Mickey Tin
1,51753150
1,51753150
answered Sep 3 '08 at 11:00
serg10
21.3k135987
21.3k135987
46
Also note that if a HashMap is modified, iterators pointing to it are rendered invalid.
– Chris K
Apr 22 '09 at 22:03
18
Iterator will throw ConcurrentModificationException, right?
– Bhushan
Jun 30 '11 at 2:26
3
So is there any difference between synchronized(myMap) {...} and ConcurrentHashMap in terms of thread safe?
– telebog
Nov 11 '11 at 16:48
3
Very true, I tried to explain same here..lovehasija.com/2012/08/16/…
– Love Hasija
Sep 20 '12 at 10:21
@Bhushan: It will throw on a best-effort basis, this is not guaranteed behavior: docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/HashMap.html
– Matt Stephenson
Oct 3 '13 at 18:49
|
show 1 more comment
46
Also note that if a HashMap is modified, iterators pointing to it are rendered invalid.
– Chris K
Apr 22 '09 at 22:03
18
Iterator will throw ConcurrentModificationException, right?
– Bhushan
Jun 30 '11 at 2:26
3
So is there any difference between synchronized(myMap) {...} and ConcurrentHashMap in terms of thread safe?
– telebog
Nov 11 '11 at 16:48
3
Very true, I tried to explain same here..lovehasija.com/2012/08/16/…
– Love Hasija
Sep 20 '12 at 10:21
@Bhushan: It will throw on a best-effort basis, this is not guaranteed behavior: docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/HashMap.html
– Matt Stephenson
Oct 3 '13 at 18:49
46
46
Also note that if a HashMap is modified, iterators pointing to it are rendered invalid.
– Chris K
Apr 22 '09 at 22:03
Also note that if a HashMap is modified, iterators pointing to it are rendered invalid.
– Chris K
Apr 22 '09 at 22:03
18
18
Iterator will throw ConcurrentModificationException, right?
– Bhushan
Jun 30 '11 at 2:26
Iterator will throw ConcurrentModificationException, right?
– Bhushan
Jun 30 '11 at 2:26
3
3
So is there any difference between synchronized(myMap) {...} and ConcurrentHashMap in terms of thread safe?
– telebog
Nov 11 '11 at 16:48
So is there any difference between synchronized(myMap) {...} and ConcurrentHashMap in terms of thread safe?
– telebog
Nov 11 '11 at 16:48
3
3
Very true, I tried to explain same here..lovehasija.com/2012/08/16/…
– Love Hasija
Sep 20 '12 at 10:21
Very true, I tried to explain same here..lovehasija.com/2012/08/16/…
– Love Hasija
Sep 20 '12 at 10:21
@Bhushan: It will throw on a best-effort basis, this is not guaranteed behavior: docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/HashMap.html
– Matt Stephenson
Oct 3 '13 at 18:49
@Bhushan: It will throw on a best-effort basis, this is not guaranteed behavior: docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/HashMap.html
– Matt Stephenson
Oct 3 '13 at 18:49
|
show 1 more comment
Hashtable
is considered legacy code. There's nothing about Hashtable
that can't be done using HashMap
or derivations of HashMap
, so for new code, I don't see any justification for going back to Hashtable
.
92
From Hashtable javadoc (emphasis added): "As of the Java 2 platform v1.2, this class was retrofitted to implement the Map interface, making it a member of the Java Collections Framework." However, you are right that it is legacy code. All the benefits of synchronization can be obtained more efficiently with Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap). (Similar to Vector being a legacy version of Collections.synchronizedList(ArrayList).)
– Kip
Jan 19 '10 at 22:09
15
@aberrant80: unfortunately you have no choice between the two and have to use Hashtable when programming for J2ME...
– pwes
Jan 12 '12 at 8:13
5
this answer should be deleted. it contains incorrect information and has a lot of upvotes.
– anon58192932
Jan 22 '16 at 20:40
@anon58192932 Is it possible to edit the question to fix it?
– GC_
Oct 14 '16 at 15:39
1
We have to get the attention of the poster @aberrant80 or an admin by flagging. Flagging could help - will try that now.
– anon58192932
Oct 14 '16 at 20:05
add a comment |
Hashtable
is considered legacy code. There's nothing about Hashtable
that can't be done using HashMap
or derivations of HashMap
, so for new code, I don't see any justification for going back to Hashtable
.
92
From Hashtable javadoc (emphasis added): "As of the Java 2 platform v1.2, this class was retrofitted to implement the Map interface, making it a member of the Java Collections Framework." However, you are right that it is legacy code. All the benefits of synchronization can be obtained more efficiently with Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap). (Similar to Vector being a legacy version of Collections.synchronizedList(ArrayList).)
– Kip
Jan 19 '10 at 22:09
15
@aberrant80: unfortunately you have no choice between the two and have to use Hashtable when programming for J2ME...
– pwes
Jan 12 '12 at 8:13
5
this answer should be deleted. it contains incorrect information and has a lot of upvotes.
– anon58192932
Jan 22 '16 at 20:40
@anon58192932 Is it possible to edit the question to fix it?
– GC_
Oct 14 '16 at 15:39
1
We have to get the attention of the poster @aberrant80 or an admin by flagging. Flagging could help - will try that now.
– anon58192932
Oct 14 '16 at 20:05
add a comment |
Hashtable
is considered legacy code. There's nothing about Hashtable
that can't be done using HashMap
or derivations of HashMap
, so for new code, I don't see any justification for going back to Hashtable
.
Hashtable
is considered legacy code. There's nothing about Hashtable
that can't be done using HashMap
or derivations of HashMap
, so for new code, I don't see any justification for going back to Hashtable
.
edited Aug 7 '18 at 12:18
kryger
9,14553654
9,14553654
answered Jun 25 '09 at 1:46
aberrant80
8,27953558
8,27953558
92
From Hashtable javadoc (emphasis added): "As of the Java 2 platform v1.2, this class was retrofitted to implement the Map interface, making it a member of the Java Collections Framework." However, you are right that it is legacy code. All the benefits of synchronization can be obtained more efficiently with Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap). (Similar to Vector being a legacy version of Collections.synchronizedList(ArrayList).)
– Kip
Jan 19 '10 at 22:09
15
@aberrant80: unfortunately you have no choice between the two and have to use Hashtable when programming for J2ME...
– pwes
Jan 12 '12 at 8:13
5
this answer should be deleted. it contains incorrect information and has a lot of upvotes.
– anon58192932
Jan 22 '16 at 20:40
@anon58192932 Is it possible to edit the question to fix it?
– GC_
Oct 14 '16 at 15:39
1
We have to get the attention of the poster @aberrant80 or an admin by flagging. Flagging could help - will try that now.
– anon58192932
Oct 14 '16 at 20:05
add a comment |
92
From Hashtable javadoc (emphasis added): "As of the Java 2 platform v1.2, this class was retrofitted to implement the Map interface, making it a member of the Java Collections Framework." However, you are right that it is legacy code. All the benefits of synchronization can be obtained more efficiently with Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap). (Similar to Vector being a legacy version of Collections.synchronizedList(ArrayList).)
– Kip
Jan 19 '10 at 22:09
15
@aberrant80: unfortunately you have no choice between the two and have to use Hashtable when programming for J2ME...
– pwes
Jan 12 '12 at 8:13
5
this answer should be deleted. it contains incorrect information and has a lot of upvotes.
– anon58192932
Jan 22 '16 at 20:40
@anon58192932 Is it possible to edit the question to fix it?
– GC_
Oct 14 '16 at 15:39
1
We have to get the attention of the poster @aberrant80 or an admin by flagging. Flagging could help - will try that now.
– anon58192932
Oct 14 '16 at 20:05
92
92
From Hashtable javadoc (emphasis added): "As of the Java 2 platform v1.2, this class was retrofitted to implement the Map interface, making it a member of the Java Collections Framework." However, you are right that it is legacy code. All the benefits of synchronization can be obtained more efficiently with Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap). (Similar to Vector being a legacy version of Collections.synchronizedList(ArrayList).)
– Kip
Jan 19 '10 at 22:09
From Hashtable javadoc (emphasis added): "As of the Java 2 platform v1.2, this class was retrofitted to implement the Map interface, making it a member of the Java Collections Framework." However, you are right that it is legacy code. All the benefits of synchronization can be obtained more efficiently with Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap). (Similar to Vector being a legacy version of Collections.synchronizedList(ArrayList).)
– Kip
Jan 19 '10 at 22:09
15
15
@aberrant80: unfortunately you have no choice between the two and have to use Hashtable when programming for J2ME...
– pwes
Jan 12 '12 at 8:13
@aberrant80: unfortunately you have no choice between the two and have to use Hashtable when programming for J2ME...
– pwes
Jan 12 '12 at 8:13
5
5
this answer should be deleted. it contains incorrect information and has a lot of upvotes.
– anon58192932
Jan 22 '16 at 20:40
this answer should be deleted. it contains incorrect information and has a lot of upvotes.
– anon58192932
Jan 22 '16 at 20:40
@anon58192932 Is it possible to edit the question to fix it?
– GC_
Oct 14 '16 at 15:39
@anon58192932 Is it possible to edit the question to fix it?
– GC_
Oct 14 '16 at 15:39
1
1
We have to get the attention of the poster @aberrant80 or an admin by flagging. Flagging could help - will try that now.
– anon58192932
Oct 14 '16 at 20:05
We have to get the attention of the poster @aberrant80 or an admin by flagging. Flagging could help - will try that now.
– anon58192932
Oct 14 '16 at 20:05
add a comment |
This question is often asked in interview to check whether candidate understands correct usage of collection classes and is aware of alternative solutions available.
- The HashMap class is roughly equivalent to Hashtable, except that it is non synchronized and permits nulls. (HashMap allows null values as key and value whereas Hashtable doesn't allow nulls).
- HashMap does not guarantee that the order of the map will remain constant over time.
- HashMap is non synchronized whereas Hashtable is synchronized.
- Iterator in the HashMap is fail-safe while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator's own remove() method. But this is not a guaranteed behavior and will be done by JVM on best effort.
Note on Some Important Terms
- Synchronized means only one thread can modify a hash table at one point of time. Basically, it means that any thread before performing an update on a hashtable will have to acquire a lock on the object while others will wait for lock to be released.
- Fail-safe is relevant from the context of iterators. If an iterator has been created on a collection object and some other thread tries to modify the collection object "structurally", a concurrent modification exception will be thrown. It is possible for other threads though to invoke "set" method since it doesn't modify the collection "structurally". However, if prior to calling "set", the collection has been modified structurally, "IllegalArgumentException" will be thrown.
- Structurally modification means deleting or inserting element which could effectively change the structure of map.
HashMap can be synchronized by
Map m = Collections.synchronizeMap(hashMap);
Map provides Collection views instead of direct support for iteration
via Enumeration objects. Collection views greatly enhance the
expressiveness of the interface, as discussed later in this section.
Map allows you to iterate over keys, values, or key-value pairs;
Hashtable does not provide the third option. Map provides a safe way
to remove entries in the midst of iteration; Hashtable did not.
Finally, Map fixes a minor deficiency in the Hashtable interface.
Hashtable has a method called contains, which returns true if the
Hashtable contains a given value. Given its name, you'd expect this
method to return true if the Hashtable contained a given key, because
the key is the primary access mechanism for a Hashtable. The Map
interface eliminates this source of confusion by renaming the method
containsValue. Also, this improves the interface's consistency —
containsValue parallels containsKey.
The Map Interface
18
This answer contains at least 2 significant factual inaccuracies. It certainly DOES NOT deserve this many upvotes.
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:05
55
1) HashMap's iterators are NOT fail-safe. They are fail-fast. There is a huge difference in meaning between those two terms. 2) There is noset
operation on aHashMap
. 3) Theput(...)
operation won't throwIllegalArgumentException
if there was a previous change. 4) The fail-fast behaviour ofHashMap
also occurs if you change a mapping. 5) The fail-fast behaviour is guaranteed. (What is not guaranteed is the behaviour of aHashTable
if you make a concurrent modification. The actual behaviour is ... unpredictable.)
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:14
24
6)Hashtable
does not guarantee that the order of map elements will be stable over time either. (You are perhaps confusingHashtable
withLinkedHashMap
.)
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:16
3
Anyone else really worried that students these days are getting the errant idea that getting "synchronized versions" of the collections somehow means that you don't have to externally synchronize compound operations? My favorite example of this beingthing.set(thing.get() + 1);
which more often than not catches newbies by surprise as completely unprotected, especially if theget()
andset()
are synchronized methods. Many of them are expecting magic.
– user4229245
May 4 '15 at 22:26
Iterators on HashMap is not fail-safe
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 1:56
add a comment |
This question is often asked in interview to check whether candidate understands correct usage of collection classes and is aware of alternative solutions available.
- The HashMap class is roughly equivalent to Hashtable, except that it is non synchronized and permits nulls. (HashMap allows null values as key and value whereas Hashtable doesn't allow nulls).
- HashMap does not guarantee that the order of the map will remain constant over time.
- HashMap is non synchronized whereas Hashtable is synchronized.
- Iterator in the HashMap is fail-safe while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator's own remove() method. But this is not a guaranteed behavior and will be done by JVM on best effort.
Note on Some Important Terms
- Synchronized means only one thread can modify a hash table at one point of time. Basically, it means that any thread before performing an update on a hashtable will have to acquire a lock on the object while others will wait for lock to be released.
- Fail-safe is relevant from the context of iterators. If an iterator has been created on a collection object and some other thread tries to modify the collection object "structurally", a concurrent modification exception will be thrown. It is possible for other threads though to invoke "set" method since it doesn't modify the collection "structurally". However, if prior to calling "set", the collection has been modified structurally, "IllegalArgumentException" will be thrown.
- Structurally modification means deleting or inserting element which could effectively change the structure of map.
HashMap can be synchronized by
Map m = Collections.synchronizeMap(hashMap);
Map provides Collection views instead of direct support for iteration
via Enumeration objects. Collection views greatly enhance the
expressiveness of the interface, as discussed later in this section.
Map allows you to iterate over keys, values, or key-value pairs;
Hashtable does not provide the third option. Map provides a safe way
to remove entries in the midst of iteration; Hashtable did not.
Finally, Map fixes a minor deficiency in the Hashtable interface.
Hashtable has a method called contains, which returns true if the
Hashtable contains a given value. Given its name, you'd expect this
method to return true if the Hashtable contained a given key, because
the key is the primary access mechanism for a Hashtable. The Map
interface eliminates this source of confusion by renaming the method
containsValue. Also, this improves the interface's consistency —
containsValue parallels containsKey.
The Map Interface
18
This answer contains at least 2 significant factual inaccuracies. It certainly DOES NOT deserve this many upvotes.
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:05
55
1) HashMap's iterators are NOT fail-safe. They are fail-fast. There is a huge difference in meaning between those two terms. 2) There is noset
operation on aHashMap
. 3) Theput(...)
operation won't throwIllegalArgumentException
if there was a previous change. 4) The fail-fast behaviour ofHashMap
also occurs if you change a mapping. 5) The fail-fast behaviour is guaranteed. (What is not guaranteed is the behaviour of aHashTable
if you make a concurrent modification. The actual behaviour is ... unpredictable.)
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:14
24
6)Hashtable
does not guarantee that the order of map elements will be stable over time either. (You are perhaps confusingHashtable
withLinkedHashMap
.)
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:16
3
Anyone else really worried that students these days are getting the errant idea that getting "synchronized versions" of the collections somehow means that you don't have to externally synchronize compound operations? My favorite example of this beingthing.set(thing.get() + 1);
which more often than not catches newbies by surprise as completely unprotected, especially if theget()
andset()
are synchronized methods. Many of them are expecting magic.
– user4229245
May 4 '15 at 22:26
Iterators on HashMap is not fail-safe
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 1:56
add a comment |
This question is often asked in interview to check whether candidate understands correct usage of collection classes and is aware of alternative solutions available.
- The HashMap class is roughly equivalent to Hashtable, except that it is non synchronized and permits nulls. (HashMap allows null values as key and value whereas Hashtable doesn't allow nulls).
- HashMap does not guarantee that the order of the map will remain constant over time.
- HashMap is non synchronized whereas Hashtable is synchronized.
- Iterator in the HashMap is fail-safe while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator's own remove() method. But this is not a guaranteed behavior and will be done by JVM on best effort.
Note on Some Important Terms
- Synchronized means only one thread can modify a hash table at one point of time. Basically, it means that any thread before performing an update on a hashtable will have to acquire a lock on the object while others will wait for lock to be released.
- Fail-safe is relevant from the context of iterators. If an iterator has been created on a collection object and some other thread tries to modify the collection object "structurally", a concurrent modification exception will be thrown. It is possible for other threads though to invoke "set" method since it doesn't modify the collection "structurally". However, if prior to calling "set", the collection has been modified structurally, "IllegalArgumentException" will be thrown.
- Structurally modification means deleting or inserting element which could effectively change the structure of map.
HashMap can be synchronized by
Map m = Collections.synchronizeMap(hashMap);
Map provides Collection views instead of direct support for iteration
via Enumeration objects. Collection views greatly enhance the
expressiveness of the interface, as discussed later in this section.
Map allows you to iterate over keys, values, or key-value pairs;
Hashtable does not provide the third option. Map provides a safe way
to remove entries in the midst of iteration; Hashtable did not.
Finally, Map fixes a minor deficiency in the Hashtable interface.
Hashtable has a method called contains, which returns true if the
Hashtable contains a given value. Given its name, you'd expect this
method to return true if the Hashtable contained a given key, because
the key is the primary access mechanism for a Hashtable. The Map
interface eliminates this source of confusion by renaming the method
containsValue. Also, this improves the interface's consistency —
containsValue parallels containsKey.
The Map Interface
This question is often asked in interview to check whether candidate understands correct usage of collection classes and is aware of alternative solutions available.
- The HashMap class is roughly equivalent to Hashtable, except that it is non synchronized and permits nulls. (HashMap allows null values as key and value whereas Hashtable doesn't allow nulls).
- HashMap does not guarantee that the order of the map will remain constant over time.
- HashMap is non synchronized whereas Hashtable is synchronized.
- Iterator in the HashMap is fail-safe while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator's own remove() method. But this is not a guaranteed behavior and will be done by JVM on best effort.
Note on Some Important Terms
- Synchronized means only one thread can modify a hash table at one point of time. Basically, it means that any thread before performing an update on a hashtable will have to acquire a lock on the object while others will wait for lock to be released.
- Fail-safe is relevant from the context of iterators. If an iterator has been created on a collection object and some other thread tries to modify the collection object "structurally", a concurrent modification exception will be thrown. It is possible for other threads though to invoke "set" method since it doesn't modify the collection "structurally". However, if prior to calling "set", the collection has been modified structurally, "IllegalArgumentException" will be thrown.
- Structurally modification means deleting or inserting element which could effectively change the structure of map.
HashMap can be synchronized by
Map m = Collections.synchronizeMap(hashMap);
Map provides Collection views instead of direct support for iteration
via Enumeration objects. Collection views greatly enhance the
expressiveness of the interface, as discussed later in this section.
Map allows you to iterate over keys, values, or key-value pairs;
Hashtable does not provide the third option. Map provides a safe way
to remove entries in the midst of iteration; Hashtable did not.
Finally, Map fixes a minor deficiency in the Hashtable interface.
Hashtable has a method called contains, which returns true if the
Hashtable contains a given value. Given its name, you'd expect this
method to return true if the Hashtable contained a given key, because
the key is the primary access mechanism for a Hashtable. The Map
interface eliminates this source of confusion by renaming the method
containsValue. Also, this improves the interface's consistency —
containsValue parallels containsKey.
The Map Interface
edited Jul 7 '14 at 8:32


Wilfred Hughes
16.6k1091129
16.6k1091129
answered Oct 4 '11 at 6:39
sravan
4,28712533
4,28712533
18
This answer contains at least 2 significant factual inaccuracies. It certainly DOES NOT deserve this many upvotes.
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:05
55
1) HashMap's iterators are NOT fail-safe. They are fail-fast. There is a huge difference in meaning between those two terms. 2) There is noset
operation on aHashMap
. 3) Theput(...)
operation won't throwIllegalArgumentException
if there was a previous change. 4) The fail-fast behaviour ofHashMap
also occurs if you change a mapping. 5) The fail-fast behaviour is guaranteed. (What is not guaranteed is the behaviour of aHashTable
if you make a concurrent modification. The actual behaviour is ... unpredictable.)
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:14
24
6)Hashtable
does not guarantee that the order of map elements will be stable over time either. (You are perhaps confusingHashtable
withLinkedHashMap
.)
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:16
3
Anyone else really worried that students these days are getting the errant idea that getting "synchronized versions" of the collections somehow means that you don't have to externally synchronize compound operations? My favorite example of this beingthing.set(thing.get() + 1);
which more often than not catches newbies by surprise as completely unprotected, especially if theget()
andset()
are synchronized methods. Many of them are expecting magic.
– user4229245
May 4 '15 at 22:26
Iterators on HashMap is not fail-safe
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 1:56
add a comment |
18
This answer contains at least 2 significant factual inaccuracies. It certainly DOES NOT deserve this many upvotes.
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:05
55
1) HashMap's iterators are NOT fail-safe. They are fail-fast. There is a huge difference in meaning between those two terms. 2) There is noset
operation on aHashMap
. 3) Theput(...)
operation won't throwIllegalArgumentException
if there was a previous change. 4) The fail-fast behaviour ofHashMap
also occurs if you change a mapping. 5) The fail-fast behaviour is guaranteed. (What is not guaranteed is the behaviour of aHashTable
if you make a concurrent modification. The actual behaviour is ... unpredictable.)
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:14
24
6)Hashtable
does not guarantee that the order of map elements will be stable over time either. (You are perhaps confusingHashtable
withLinkedHashMap
.)
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:16
3
Anyone else really worried that students these days are getting the errant idea that getting "synchronized versions" of the collections somehow means that you don't have to externally synchronize compound operations? My favorite example of this beingthing.set(thing.get() + 1);
which more often than not catches newbies by surprise as completely unprotected, especially if theget()
andset()
are synchronized methods. Many of them are expecting magic.
– user4229245
May 4 '15 at 22:26
Iterators on HashMap is not fail-safe
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 1:56
18
18
This answer contains at least 2 significant factual inaccuracies. It certainly DOES NOT deserve this many upvotes.
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:05
This answer contains at least 2 significant factual inaccuracies. It certainly DOES NOT deserve this many upvotes.
– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:05
55
55
1) HashMap's iterators are NOT fail-safe. They are fail-fast. There is a huge difference in meaning between those two terms. 2) There is no
set
operation on a HashMap
. 3) The put(...)
operation won't throw IllegalArgumentException
if there was a previous change. 4) The fail-fast behaviour of HashMap
also occurs if you change a mapping. 5) The fail-fast behaviour is guaranteed. (What is not guaranteed is the behaviour of a HashTable
if you make a concurrent modification. The actual behaviour is ... unpredictable.)– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:14
1) HashMap's iterators are NOT fail-safe. They are fail-fast. There is a huge difference in meaning between those two terms. 2) There is no
set
operation on a HashMap
. 3) The put(...)
operation won't throw IllegalArgumentException
if there was a previous change. 4) The fail-fast behaviour of HashMap
also occurs if you change a mapping. 5) The fail-fast behaviour is guaranteed. (What is not guaranteed is the behaviour of a HashTable
if you make a concurrent modification. The actual behaviour is ... unpredictable.)– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:14
24
24
6)
Hashtable
does not guarantee that the order of map elements will be stable over time either. (You are perhaps confusing Hashtable
with LinkedHashMap
.)– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:16
6)
Hashtable
does not guarantee that the order of map elements will be stable over time either. (You are perhaps confusing Hashtable
with LinkedHashMap
.)– Stephen C
Sep 9 '13 at 8:16
3
3
Anyone else really worried that students these days are getting the errant idea that getting "synchronized versions" of the collections somehow means that you don't have to externally synchronize compound operations? My favorite example of this being
thing.set(thing.get() + 1);
which more often than not catches newbies by surprise as completely unprotected, especially if the get()
and set()
are synchronized methods. Many of them are expecting magic.– user4229245
May 4 '15 at 22:26
Anyone else really worried that students these days are getting the errant idea that getting "synchronized versions" of the collections somehow means that you don't have to externally synchronize compound operations? My favorite example of this being
thing.set(thing.get() + 1);
which more often than not catches newbies by surprise as completely unprotected, especially if the get()
and set()
are synchronized methods. Many of them are expecting magic.– user4229245
May 4 '15 at 22:26
Iterators on HashMap is not fail-safe
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 1:56
Iterators on HashMap is not fail-safe
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 1:56
add a comment |
HashMap
: An implementation of the Map
interface that uses hash codes to index an array.
Hashtable
: Hi, 1998 called. They want their collections API back.
Seriously though, you're better off staying away from Hashtable
altogether. For single-threaded apps, you don't need the extra overhead of synchronisation. For highly concurrent apps, the paranoid synchronisation might lead to starvation, deadlocks, or unnecessary garbage collection pauses. Like Tim Howland pointed out, you might use ConcurrentHashMap
instead.
This actually makes sense. ConcurrentHashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier.
– prap19
Nov 19 '11 at 14:55
1
Is this specific to Java or all the hash map implementation.
– Goutam
Sep 1 '18 at 19:23
add a comment |
HashMap
: An implementation of the Map
interface that uses hash codes to index an array.
Hashtable
: Hi, 1998 called. They want their collections API back.
Seriously though, you're better off staying away from Hashtable
altogether. For single-threaded apps, you don't need the extra overhead of synchronisation. For highly concurrent apps, the paranoid synchronisation might lead to starvation, deadlocks, or unnecessary garbage collection pauses. Like Tim Howland pointed out, you might use ConcurrentHashMap
instead.
This actually makes sense. ConcurrentHashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier.
– prap19
Nov 19 '11 at 14:55
1
Is this specific to Java or all the hash map implementation.
– Goutam
Sep 1 '18 at 19:23
add a comment |
HashMap
: An implementation of the Map
interface that uses hash codes to index an array.
Hashtable
: Hi, 1998 called. They want their collections API back.
Seriously though, you're better off staying away from Hashtable
altogether. For single-threaded apps, you don't need the extra overhead of synchronisation. For highly concurrent apps, the paranoid synchronisation might lead to starvation, deadlocks, or unnecessary garbage collection pauses. Like Tim Howland pointed out, you might use ConcurrentHashMap
instead.
HashMap
: An implementation of the Map
interface that uses hash codes to index an array.
Hashtable
: Hi, 1998 called. They want their collections API back.
Seriously though, you're better off staying away from Hashtable
altogether. For single-threaded apps, you don't need the extra overhead of synchronisation. For highly concurrent apps, the paranoid synchronisation might lead to starvation, deadlocks, or unnecessary garbage collection pauses. Like Tim Howland pointed out, you might use ConcurrentHashMap
instead.
edited Dec 4 '17 at 21:31
answered Sep 2 '08 at 23:14
Apocalisp
31.1k693146
31.1k693146
This actually makes sense. ConcurrentHashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier.
– prap19
Nov 19 '11 at 14:55
1
Is this specific to Java or all the hash map implementation.
– Goutam
Sep 1 '18 at 19:23
add a comment |
This actually makes sense. ConcurrentHashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier.
– prap19
Nov 19 '11 at 14:55
1
Is this specific to Java or all the hash map implementation.
– Goutam
Sep 1 '18 at 19:23
This actually makes sense. ConcurrentHashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier.
– prap19
Nov 19 '11 at 14:55
This actually makes sense. ConcurrentHashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier.
– prap19
Nov 19 '11 at 14:55
1
1
Is this specific to Java or all the hash map implementation.
– Goutam
Sep 1 '18 at 19:23
Is this specific to Java or all the hash map implementation.
– Goutam
Sep 1 '18 at 19:23
add a comment |
Keep in mind that HashTable
was legacy class before Java Collections Framework (JCF) was introduced and was later retrofitted to implement the Map
interface. So was Vector
and Stack
.
Therefore, always stay away from them in new code since there always better alternative in the JCF as others had pointed out.
Here is the Java collection cheat sheet that you will find useful. Notice the gray block contains the legacy class HashTable,Vector and Stack.
add a comment |
Keep in mind that HashTable
was legacy class before Java Collections Framework (JCF) was introduced and was later retrofitted to implement the Map
interface. So was Vector
and Stack
.
Therefore, always stay away from them in new code since there always better alternative in the JCF as others had pointed out.
Here is the Java collection cheat sheet that you will find useful. Notice the gray block contains the legacy class HashTable,Vector and Stack.
add a comment |
Keep in mind that HashTable
was legacy class before Java Collections Framework (JCF) was introduced and was later retrofitted to implement the Map
interface. So was Vector
and Stack
.
Therefore, always stay away from them in new code since there always better alternative in the JCF as others had pointed out.
Here is the Java collection cheat sheet that you will find useful. Notice the gray block contains the legacy class HashTable,Vector and Stack.
Keep in mind that HashTable
was legacy class before Java Collections Framework (JCF) was introduced and was later retrofitted to implement the Map
interface. So was Vector
and Stack
.
Therefore, always stay away from them in new code since there always better alternative in the JCF as others had pointed out.
Here is the Java collection cheat sheet that you will find useful. Notice the gray block contains the legacy class HashTable,Vector and Stack.
edited Jun 3 '15 at 5:43
Pratik Khadloya
7,65645876
7,65645876
answered Mar 25 '14 at 8:58


pierrotlefou
19.5k27120159
19.5k27120159
add a comment |
add a comment |
In addition to what izb said, HashMap
allows null values, whereas the Hashtable
does not.
Also note that Hashtable
extends the Dictionary
class, which as the Javadocs state, is obsolete and has been replaced by the Map
interface.
3
but that does not make the HashTable obsolete does it?
– Pacerier
Nov 1 '11 at 20:22
add a comment |
In addition to what izb said, HashMap
allows null values, whereas the Hashtable
does not.
Also note that Hashtable
extends the Dictionary
class, which as the Javadocs state, is obsolete and has been replaced by the Map
interface.
3
but that does not make the HashTable obsolete does it?
– Pacerier
Nov 1 '11 at 20:22
add a comment |
In addition to what izb said, HashMap
allows null values, whereas the Hashtable
does not.
Also note that Hashtable
extends the Dictionary
class, which as the Javadocs state, is obsolete and has been replaced by the Map
interface.
In addition to what izb said, HashMap
allows null values, whereas the Hashtable
does not.
Also note that Hashtable
extends the Dictionary
class, which as the Javadocs state, is obsolete and has been replaced by the Map
interface.
answered Sep 2 '08 at 20:30
matt b
110k58251320
110k58251320
3
but that does not make the HashTable obsolete does it?
– Pacerier
Nov 1 '11 at 20:22
add a comment |
3
but that does not make the HashTable obsolete does it?
– Pacerier
Nov 1 '11 at 20:22
3
3
but that does not make the HashTable obsolete does it?
– Pacerier
Nov 1 '11 at 20:22
but that does not make the HashTable obsolete does it?
– Pacerier
Nov 1 '11 at 20:22
add a comment |
Take a look at this chart. It provides comparisons between different data structures along with HashMap and Hashtable. The comparison is precise, clear and easy to understand.
Java Collection Matrix
thanks, now I know what to choose in my scenario.
– Well Smith
Apr 15 '18 at 3:17
add a comment |
Take a look at this chart. It provides comparisons between different data structures along with HashMap and Hashtable. The comparison is precise, clear and easy to understand.
Java Collection Matrix
thanks, now I know what to choose in my scenario.
– Well Smith
Apr 15 '18 at 3:17
add a comment |
Take a look at this chart. It provides comparisons between different data structures along with HashMap and Hashtable. The comparison is precise, clear and easy to understand.
Java Collection Matrix
Take a look at this chart. It provides comparisons between different data structures along with HashMap and Hashtable. The comparison is precise, clear and easy to understand.
Java Collection Matrix
edited May 15 '13 at 3:36
answered Nov 20 '12 at 5:35


Sujan
99521638
99521638
thanks, now I know what to choose in my scenario.
– Well Smith
Apr 15 '18 at 3:17
add a comment |
thanks, now I know what to choose in my scenario.
– Well Smith
Apr 15 '18 at 3:17
thanks, now I know what to choose in my scenario.
– Well Smith
Apr 15 '18 at 3:17
thanks, now I know what to choose in my scenario.
– Well Smith
Apr 15 '18 at 3:17
add a comment |
There is many good answer already posted. I'm adding few new points and summarizing it.
HashMap
and Hashtable
both are used to store data in key and value form. Both are using hashing technique to store unique keys.
But there are many differences between HashMap and Hashtable classes that are given below.
HashMap
HashMap
is non synchronized. It is not-thread safe and can't be shared between many threads without proper synchronization code.
HashMap
allows one null key and multiple null values.
HashMap
is a new class introduced in JDK 1.2.
HashMap
is fast.- We can make the
HashMap
as synchronized by calling this codeMap m = Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap);
HashMap
is traversed by Iterator.- Iterator in
HashMap
is fail-fast.
HashMap
inherits AbstractMap class.
Hashtable
Hashtable
is synchronized. It is thread-safe and can be shared with many threads.
Hashtable
doesn't allow any null key or value.
Hashtable
is a legacy class.
Hashtable
is slow.
Hashtable
is internally synchronized and can't be unsynchronized.
Hashtable
is traversed by Enumerator and Iterator.- Enumerator in
Hashtable
is not fail-fast.
Hashtable
inherits Dictionary class.
Further reading What is difference between HashMap and Hashtable in Java?
Pretty much covered in this answer (dupicate of )- stackoverflow.com/a/39785829/432903.
– prayagupd
Mar 13 '17 at 2:36
Why do you say ~"Hashtable is a legacy class"? Where is the supporting documentation for that.
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:29
2
@IgorGanapolsky you may read this - stackoverflow.com/questions/21086307/…
– roottraveller
Mar 29 '17 at 9:48
Maintaining HashMap is costly than TreeMap. Because HashMap creates unnecessary extra buckets.
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 2:05
add a comment |
There is many good answer already posted. I'm adding few new points and summarizing it.
HashMap
and Hashtable
both are used to store data in key and value form. Both are using hashing technique to store unique keys.
But there are many differences between HashMap and Hashtable classes that are given below.
HashMap
HashMap
is non synchronized. It is not-thread safe and can't be shared between many threads without proper synchronization code.
HashMap
allows one null key and multiple null values.
HashMap
is a new class introduced in JDK 1.2.
HashMap
is fast.- We can make the
HashMap
as synchronized by calling this codeMap m = Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap);
HashMap
is traversed by Iterator.- Iterator in
HashMap
is fail-fast.
HashMap
inherits AbstractMap class.
Hashtable
Hashtable
is synchronized. It is thread-safe and can be shared with many threads.
Hashtable
doesn't allow any null key or value.
Hashtable
is a legacy class.
Hashtable
is slow.
Hashtable
is internally synchronized and can't be unsynchronized.
Hashtable
is traversed by Enumerator and Iterator.- Enumerator in
Hashtable
is not fail-fast.
Hashtable
inherits Dictionary class.
Further reading What is difference between HashMap and Hashtable in Java?
Pretty much covered in this answer (dupicate of )- stackoverflow.com/a/39785829/432903.
– prayagupd
Mar 13 '17 at 2:36
Why do you say ~"Hashtable is a legacy class"? Where is the supporting documentation for that.
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:29
2
@IgorGanapolsky you may read this - stackoverflow.com/questions/21086307/…
– roottraveller
Mar 29 '17 at 9:48
Maintaining HashMap is costly than TreeMap. Because HashMap creates unnecessary extra buckets.
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 2:05
add a comment |
There is many good answer already posted. I'm adding few new points and summarizing it.
HashMap
and Hashtable
both are used to store data in key and value form. Both are using hashing technique to store unique keys.
But there are many differences between HashMap and Hashtable classes that are given below.
HashMap
HashMap
is non synchronized. It is not-thread safe and can't be shared between many threads without proper synchronization code.
HashMap
allows one null key and multiple null values.
HashMap
is a new class introduced in JDK 1.2.
HashMap
is fast.- We can make the
HashMap
as synchronized by calling this codeMap m = Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap);
HashMap
is traversed by Iterator.- Iterator in
HashMap
is fail-fast.
HashMap
inherits AbstractMap class.
Hashtable
Hashtable
is synchronized. It is thread-safe and can be shared with many threads.
Hashtable
doesn't allow any null key or value.
Hashtable
is a legacy class.
Hashtable
is slow.
Hashtable
is internally synchronized and can't be unsynchronized.
Hashtable
is traversed by Enumerator and Iterator.- Enumerator in
Hashtable
is not fail-fast.
Hashtable
inherits Dictionary class.
Further reading What is difference between HashMap and Hashtable in Java?
There is many good answer already posted. I'm adding few new points and summarizing it.
HashMap
and Hashtable
both are used to store data in key and value form. Both are using hashing technique to store unique keys.
But there are many differences between HashMap and Hashtable classes that are given below.
HashMap
HashMap
is non synchronized. It is not-thread safe and can't be shared between many threads without proper synchronization code.
HashMap
allows one null key and multiple null values.
HashMap
is a new class introduced in JDK 1.2.
HashMap
is fast.- We can make the
HashMap
as synchronized by calling this codeMap m = Collections.synchronizedMap(HashMap);
HashMap
is traversed by Iterator.- Iterator in
HashMap
is fail-fast.
HashMap
inherits AbstractMap class.
Hashtable
Hashtable
is synchronized. It is thread-safe and can be shared with many threads.
Hashtable
doesn't allow any null key or value.
Hashtable
is a legacy class.
Hashtable
is slow.
Hashtable
is internally synchronized and can't be unsynchronized.
Hashtable
is traversed by Enumerator and Iterator.- Enumerator in
Hashtable
is not fail-fast.
Hashtable
inherits Dictionary class.
Further reading What is difference between HashMap and Hashtable in Java?
edited Aug 16 '18 at 12:23
Karthikeyan Vaithilingam
4,54473047
4,54473047
answered Mar 6 '17 at 10:09


roottraveller
3,88933440
3,88933440
Pretty much covered in this answer (dupicate of )- stackoverflow.com/a/39785829/432903.
– prayagupd
Mar 13 '17 at 2:36
Why do you say ~"Hashtable is a legacy class"? Where is the supporting documentation for that.
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:29
2
@IgorGanapolsky you may read this - stackoverflow.com/questions/21086307/…
– roottraveller
Mar 29 '17 at 9:48
Maintaining HashMap is costly than TreeMap. Because HashMap creates unnecessary extra buckets.
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 2:05
add a comment |
Pretty much covered in this answer (dupicate of )- stackoverflow.com/a/39785829/432903.
– prayagupd
Mar 13 '17 at 2:36
Why do you say ~"Hashtable is a legacy class"? Where is the supporting documentation for that.
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:29
2
@IgorGanapolsky you may read this - stackoverflow.com/questions/21086307/…
– roottraveller
Mar 29 '17 at 9:48
Maintaining HashMap is costly than TreeMap. Because HashMap creates unnecessary extra buckets.
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 2:05
Pretty much covered in this answer (dupicate of )- stackoverflow.com/a/39785829/432903.
– prayagupd
Mar 13 '17 at 2:36
Pretty much covered in this answer (dupicate of )- stackoverflow.com/a/39785829/432903.
– prayagupd
Mar 13 '17 at 2:36
Why do you say ~"Hashtable is a legacy class"? Where is the supporting documentation for that.
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:29
Why do you say ~"Hashtable is a legacy class"? Where is the supporting documentation for that.
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:29
2
2
@IgorGanapolsky you may read this - stackoverflow.com/questions/21086307/…
– roottraveller
Mar 29 '17 at 9:48
@IgorGanapolsky you may read this - stackoverflow.com/questions/21086307/…
– roottraveller
Mar 29 '17 at 9:48
Maintaining HashMap is costly than TreeMap. Because HashMap creates unnecessary extra buckets.
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 2:05
Maintaining HashMap is costly than TreeMap. Because HashMap creates unnecessary extra buckets.
– Abdul
Jul 30 '18 at 2:05
add a comment |
Hashtable
is similar to the HashMap
and has a similar interface. It is recommended that you use HashMap
, unless you require support for legacy applications or you need synchronisation, as the Hashtables
methods are synchronised. So in your case as you are not multi-threading, HashMaps
are your best bet.
add a comment |
Hashtable
is similar to the HashMap
and has a similar interface. It is recommended that you use HashMap
, unless you require support for legacy applications or you need synchronisation, as the Hashtables
methods are synchronised. So in your case as you are not multi-threading, HashMaps
are your best bet.
add a comment |
Hashtable
is similar to the HashMap
and has a similar interface. It is recommended that you use HashMap
, unless you require support for legacy applications or you need synchronisation, as the Hashtables
methods are synchronised. So in your case as you are not multi-threading, HashMaps
are your best bet.
Hashtable
is similar to the HashMap
and has a similar interface. It is recommended that you use HashMap
, unless you require support for legacy applications or you need synchronisation, as the Hashtables
methods are synchronised. So in your case as you are not multi-threading, HashMaps
are your best bet.
edited Mar 2 '15 at 8:55
nbro
5,56584893
5,56584893
answered Sep 2 '08 at 20:25
Miles D
4,99252835
4,99252835
add a comment |
add a comment |
Another key difference between hashtable and hashmap is that Iterator in the HashMap is fail-fast while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator's own remove() method. But this is not a guaranteed behavior and will be done by JVM on best effort."
My source: http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2010/10/difference-between-hashmap-and.html
add a comment |
Another key difference between hashtable and hashmap is that Iterator in the HashMap is fail-fast while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator's own remove() method. But this is not a guaranteed behavior and will be done by JVM on best effort."
My source: http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2010/10/difference-between-hashmap-and.html
add a comment |
Another key difference between hashtable and hashmap is that Iterator in the HashMap is fail-fast while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator's own remove() method. But this is not a guaranteed behavior and will be done by JVM on best effort."
My source: http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2010/10/difference-between-hashmap-and.html
Another key difference between hashtable and hashmap is that Iterator in the HashMap is fail-fast while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator's own remove() method. But this is not a guaranteed behavior and will be done by JVM on best effort."
My source: http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2010/10/difference-between-hashmap-and.html
answered Sep 8 '11 at 6:40
Neerja
31132
31132
add a comment |
add a comment |
Beside all the other important aspects already mentioned here, Collections API (e.g. Map interface) is being modified all the time to conform to the "latest and greatest" additions to Java spec.
For example, compare Java 5 Map iterating:
for (Elem elem : map.keys()) {
elem.doSth();
}
versus the old Hashtable approach:
for (Enumeration en = htable.keys(); en.hasMoreElements(); ) {
Elem elem = (Elem) en.nextElement();
elem.doSth();
}
In Java 1.8 we are also promised to be able to construct and access HashMaps like in good old scripting languages:
Map<String,Integer> map = { "orange" : 12, "apples" : 15 };
map["apples"];
Update: No, they won't land in 1.8... :(
Are Project Coin's collection enhancements going to be in JDK8?
add a comment |
Beside all the other important aspects already mentioned here, Collections API (e.g. Map interface) is being modified all the time to conform to the "latest and greatest" additions to Java spec.
For example, compare Java 5 Map iterating:
for (Elem elem : map.keys()) {
elem.doSth();
}
versus the old Hashtable approach:
for (Enumeration en = htable.keys(); en.hasMoreElements(); ) {
Elem elem = (Elem) en.nextElement();
elem.doSth();
}
In Java 1.8 we are also promised to be able to construct and access HashMaps like in good old scripting languages:
Map<String,Integer> map = { "orange" : 12, "apples" : 15 };
map["apples"];
Update: No, they won't land in 1.8... :(
Are Project Coin's collection enhancements going to be in JDK8?
add a comment |
Beside all the other important aspects already mentioned here, Collections API (e.g. Map interface) is being modified all the time to conform to the "latest and greatest" additions to Java spec.
For example, compare Java 5 Map iterating:
for (Elem elem : map.keys()) {
elem.doSth();
}
versus the old Hashtable approach:
for (Enumeration en = htable.keys(); en.hasMoreElements(); ) {
Elem elem = (Elem) en.nextElement();
elem.doSth();
}
In Java 1.8 we are also promised to be able to construct and access HashMaps like in good old scripting languages:
Map<String,Integer> map = { "orange" : 12, "apples" : 15 };
map["apples"];
Update: No, they won't land in 1.8... :(
Are Project Coin's collection enhancements going to be in JDK8?
Beside all the other important aspects already mentioned here, Collections API (e.g. Map interface) is being modified all the time to conform to the "latest and greatest" additions to Java spec.
For example, compare Java 5 Map iterating:
for (Elem elem : map.keys()) {
elem.doSth();
}
versus the old Hashtable approach:
for (Enumeration en = htable.keys(); en.hasMoreElements(); ) {
Elem elem = (Elem) en.nextElement();
elem.doSth();
}
In Java 1.8 we are also promised to be able to construct and access HashMaps like in good old scripting languages:
Map<String,Integer> map = { "orange" : 12, "apples" : 15 };
map["apples"];
Update: No, they won't land in 1.8... :(
Are Project Coin's collection enhancements going to be in JDK8?
edited May 23 '17 at 12:34
Community♦
11
11
answered Jan 12 '12 at 9:17
pwes
1,5241826
1,5241826
add a comment |
add a comment |
HashTable is synchronized, if you are using it in a single thread you can use HashMap, which is an unsynchronized version. Unsynchronized objects are often a little more performant. By the way if multiple threads access a HashMap concurrently, and at least one of the threads modifies the map structurally, it must be synchronized externally.
Youn can wrap a unsynchronized map in a synchronized one using :
Map m = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap(...));
HashTable can only contain non-null object as a key or as a value. HashMap can contain one null key and null values.
The iterators returned by Map are fail-fast, if the map is structurally modified at any time after the iterator is created, in any way except through the iterator's own remove method, the iterator will throw a
ConcurrentModificationException
. Thus, in the face of concurrent modification, the iterator fails quickly and cleanly, rather than risking arbitrary, non-deterministic behavior at an undetermined time in the future. Whereas the Enumerations returned by Hashtable's keys and elements methods are not fail-fast.HashTable and HashMap are member of the Java Collections Framework (since Java 2 platform v1.2, HashTable was retrofitted to implement the Map interface).
HashTable is considered legacy code, the documentation advise to use ConcurrentHashMap in place of Hashtable if a thread-safe highly-concurrent implementation is desired.
HashMap doesn't guarantee the order in which elements are returned. For HashTable I guess it's the same but I'm not entirely sure, I don't find ressource that clearly state that.
add a comment |
HashTable is synchronized, if you are using it in a single thread you can use HashMap, which is an unsynchronized version. Unsynchronized objects are often a little more performant. By the way if multiple threads access a HashMap concurrently, and at least one of the threads modifies the map structurally, it must be synchronized externally.
Youn can wrap a unsynchronized map in a synchronized one using :
Map m = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap(...));
HashTable can only contain non-null object as a key or as a value. HashMap can contain one null key and null values.
The iterators returned by Map are fail-fast, if the map is structurally modified at any time after the iterator is created, in any way except through the iterator's own remove method, the iterator will throw a
ConcurrentModificationException
. Thus, in the face of concurrent modification, the iterator fails quickly and cleanly, rather than risking arbitrary, non-deterministic behavior at an undetermined time in the future. Whereas the Enumerations returned by Hashtable's keys and elements methods are not fail-fast.HashTable and HashMap are member of the Java Collections Framework (since Java 2 platform v1.2, HashTable was retrofitted to implement the Map interface).
HashTable is considered legacy code, the documentation advise to use ConcurrentHashMap in place of Hashtable if a thread-safe highly-concurrent implementation is desired.
HashMap doesn't guarantee the order in which elements are returned. For HashTable I guess it's the same but I'm not entirely sure, I don't find ressource that clearly state that.
add a comment |
HashTable is synchronized, if you are using it in a single thread you can use HashMap, which is an unsynchronized version. Unsynchronized objects are often a little more performant. By the way if multiple threads access a HashMap concurrently, and at least one of the threads modifies the map structurally, it must be synchronized externally.
Youn can wrap a unsynchronized map in a synchronized one using :
Map m = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap(...));
HashTable can only contain non-null object as a key or as a value. HashMap can contain one null key and null values.
The iterators returned by Map are fail-fast, if the map is structurally modified at any time after the iterator is created, in any way except through the iterator's own remove method, the iterator will throw a
ConcurrentModificationException
. Thus, in the face of concurrent modification, the iterator fails quickly and cleanly, rather than risking arbitrary, non-deterministic behavior at an undetermined time in the future. Whereas the Enumerations returned by Hashtable's keys and elements methods are not fail-fast.HashTable and HashMap are member of the Java Collections Framework (since Java 2 platform v1.2, HashTable was retrofitted to implement the Map interface).
HashTable is considered legacy code, the documentation advise to use ConcurrentHashMap in place of Hashtable if a thread-safe highly-concurrent implementation is desired.
HashMap doesn't guarantee the order in which elements are returned. For HashTable I guess it's the same but I'm not entirely sure, I don't find ressource that clearly state that.
HashTable is synchronized, if you are using it in a single thread you can use HashMap, which is an unsynchronized version. Unsynchronized objects are often a little more performant. By the way if multiple threads access a HashMap concurrently, and at least one of the threads modifies the map structurally, it must be synchronized externally.
Youn can wrap a unsynchronized map in a synchronized one using :
Map m = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap(...));
HashTable can only contain non-null object as a key or as a value. HashMap can contain one null key and null values.
The iterators returned by Map are fail-fast, if the map is structurally modified at any time after the iterator is created, in any way except through the iterator's own remove method, the iterator will throw a
ConcurrentModificationException
. Thus, in the face of concurrent modification, the iterator fails quickly and cleanly, rather than risking arbitrary, non-deterministic behavior at an undetermined time in the future. Whereas the Enumerations returned by Hashtable's keys and elements methods are not fail-fast.HashTable and HashMap are member of the Java Collections Framework (since Java 2 platform v1.2, HashTable was retrofitted to implement the Map interface).
HashTable is considered legacy code, the documentation advise to use ConcurrentHashMap in place of Hashtable if a thread-safe highly-concurrent implementation is desired.
HashMap doesn't guarantee the order in which elements are returned. For HashTable I guess it's the same but I'm not entirely sure, I don't find ressource that clearly state that.
answered Apr 29 '12 at 13:57
alain.janinm
16.5k94489
16.5k94489
add a comment |
add a comment |
HashMap
and Hashtable
have significant algorithmic differences as well. No one has mentioned this before so that's why I am bringing it up. HashMap
will construct a hash table with power of two size, increase it dynamically such that you have at most about eight elements (collisions) in any bucket and will stir the elements very well for general element types. However, the Hashtable
implementation provides better and finer control over the hashing if you know what you are doing, namely you can fix the table size using e.g. the closest prime number to your values domain size and this will result in better performance than HashMap i.e. less collisions for some cases.
Separate from the obvious differences discussed extensively in this question, I see the Hashtable as a "manual drive" car where you have better control over the hashing and the HashMap as the "automatic drive" counterpart that will generally perform well.
add a comment |
HashMap
and Hashtable
have significant algorithmic differences as well. No one has mentioned this before so that's why I am bringing it up. HashMap
will construct a hash table with power of two size, increase it dynamically such that you have at most about eight elements (collisions) in any bucket and will stir the elements very well for general element types. However, the Hashtable
implementation provides better and finer control over the hashing if you know what you are doing, namely you can fix the table size using e.g. the closest prime number to your values domain size and this will result in better performance than HashMap i.e. less collisions for some cases.
Separate from the obvious differences discussed extensively in this question, I see the Hashtable as a "manual drive" car where you have better control over the hashing and the HashMap as the "automatic drive" counterpart that will generally perform well.
add a comment |
HashMap
and Hashtable
have significant algorithmic differences as well. No one has mentioned this before so that's why I am bringing it up. HashMap
will construct a hash table with power of two size, increase it dynamically such that you have at most about eight elements (collisions) in any bucket and will stir the elements very well for general element types. However, the Hashtable
implementation provides better and finer control over the hashing if you know what you are doing, namely you can fix the table size using e.g. the closest prime number to your values domain size and this will result in better performance than HashMap i.e. less collisions for some cases.
Separate from the obvious differences discussed extensively in this question, I see the Hashtable as a "manual drive" car where you have better control over the hashing and the HashMap as the "automatic drive" counterpart that will generally perform well.
HashMap
and Hashtable
have significant algorithmic differences as well. No one has mentioned this before so that's why I am bringing it up. HashMap
will construct a hash table with power of two size, increase it dynamically such that you have at most about eight elements (collisions) in any bucket and will stir the elements very well for general element types. However, the Hashtable
implementation provides better and finer control over the hashing if you know what you are doing, namely you can fix the table size using e.g. the closest prime number to your values domain size and this will result in better performance than HashMap i.e. less collisions for some cases.
Separate from the obvious differences discussed extensively in this question, I see the Hashtable as a "manual drive" car where you have better control over the hashing and the HashMap as the "automatic drive" counterpart that will generally perform well.
edited Jan 24 '14 at 8:35
answered Dec 10 '12 at 8:57
SkyWalker
5,218842101
5,218842101
add a comment |
add a comment |
Hashtable is synchronized, whereas HashMap isn't. That makes Hashtable slower than Hashmap.
For non-threaded apps, use HashMap since they are otherwise the same in terms of functionality.
add a comment |
Hashtable is synchronized, whereas HashMap isn't. That makes Hashtable slower than Hashmap.
For non-threaded apps, use HashMap since they are otherwise the same in terms of functionality.
add a comment |
Hashtable is synchronized, whereas HashMap isn't. That makes Hashtable slower than Hashmap.
For non-threaded apps, use HashMap since they are otherwise the same in terms of functionality.
Hashtable is synchronized, whereas HashMap isn't. That makes Hashtable slower than Hashmap.
For non-threaded apps, use HashMap since they are otherwise the same in terms of functionality.
answered Sep 2 '08 at 20:22
izb
23.9k3097157
23.9k3097157
add a comment |
add a comment |
Based on the info here, I'd recommend going with HashMap. I think the biggest advantage is that Java will prevent you from modifying it while you are iterating over it, unless you do it through the iterator.
5
It doesn't actually prevent it, it just detects it and throws an error.
– Bart van Heukelom
Dec 18 '10 at 1:44
1
I'm pretty sure it will throw a ConncurrentModificationException before the underlying collection is modified, though I could be wrong.
– pkaeding
Jan 1 '11 at 1:46
It will attempt to detect concurrent modification and throw an exception. But if you're doing anything with threads, it can't make any promises. Absolutely anything can happen, including breakage.
– cHao
Apr 18 '11 at 14:03
add a comment |
Based on the info here, I'd recommend going with HashMap. I think the biggest advantage is that Java will prevent you from modifying it while you are iterating over it, unless you do it through the iterator.
5
It doesn't actually prevent it, it just detects it and throws an error.
– Bart van Heukelom
Dec 18 '10 at 1:44
1
I'm pretty sure it will throw a ConncurrentModificationException before the underlying collection is modified, though I could be wrong.
– pkaeding
Jan 1 '11 at 1:46
It will attempt to detect concurrent modification and throw an exception. But if you're doing anything with threads, it can't make any promises. Absolutely anything can happen, including breakage.
– cHao
Apr 18 '11 at 14:03
add a comment |
Based on the info here, I'd recommend going with HashMap. I think the biggest advantage is that Java will prevent you from modifying it while you are iterating over it, unless you do it through the iterator.
Based on the info here, I'd recommend going with HashMap. I think the biggest advantage is that Java will prevent you from modifying it while you are iterating over it, unless you do it through the iterator.
answered Sep 2 '08 at 20:14
pkaeding
24.2k2585130
24.2k2585130
5
It doesn't actually prevent it, it just detects it and throws an error.
– Bart van Heukelom
Dec 18 '10 at 1:44
1
I'm pretty sure it will throw a ConncurrentModificationException before the underlying collection is modified, though I could be wrong.
– pkaeding
Jan 1 '11 at 1:46
It will attempt to detect concurrent modification and throw an exception. But if you're doing anything with threads, it can't make any promises. Absolutely anything can happen, including breakage.
– cHao
Apr 18 '11 at 14:03
add a comment |
5
It doesn't actually prevent it, it just detects it and throws an error.
– Bart van Heukelom
Dec 18 '10 at 1:44
1
I'm pretty sure it will throw a ConncurrentModificationException before the underlying collection is modified, though I could be wrong.
– pkaeding
Jan 1 '11 at 1:46
It will attempt to detect concurrent modification and throw an exception. But if you're doing anything with threads, it can't make any promises. Absolutely anything can happen, including breakage.
– cHao
Apr 18 '11 at 14:03
5
5
It doesn't actually prevent it, it just detects it and throws an error.
– Bart van Heukelom
Dec 18 '10 at 1:44
It doesn't actually prevent it, it just detects it and throws an error.
– Bart van Heukelom
Dec 18 '10 at 1:44
1
1
I'm pretty sure it will throw a ConncurrentModificationException before the underlying collection is modified, though I could be wrong.
– pkaeding
Jan 1 '11 at 1:46
I'm pretty sure it will throw a ConncurrentModificationException before the underlying collection is modified, though I could be wrong.
– pkaeding
Jan 1 '11 at 1:46
It will attempt to detect concurrent modification and throw an exception. But if you're doing anything with threads, it can't make any promises. Absolutely anything can happen, including breakage.
– cHao
Apr 18 '11 at 14:03
It will attempt to detect concurrent modification and throw an exception. But if you're doing anything with threads, it can't make any promises. Absolutely anything can happen, including breakage.
– cHao
Apr 18 '11 at 14:03
add a comment |
A Collection
— sometimes called a container — is simply an object that groups multiple elements into a single unit. Collection
s are used to store, retrieve, manipulate, and communicate aggregate data. A collections framework W is a unified architecture for representing and manipulating collections.
The HashMap
JDK1.2
and Hashtable JDK1.0
, both are used to represent a group of objects that are represented in <Key, Value>
pair. Each <Key, Value>
pair is called Entry
object. The collection of Entries is referred by the object of HashMap
and Hashtable
. Keys in a collection must be unique or distinctive. [as they are used to retrieve a mapped value a particular key. values in a collection can be duplicated.]
« Superclass, Legacy and Collection Framework member
Hashtable is a legacy class introduced in JDK1.0
, which is a subclass of Dictionary class. From JDK1.2
Hashtable is re-engineered to implement the Map interface to make a member of collection framework. HashMap is a member of Java Collection Framework right from the beginning of its introduction in JDK1.2
. HashMap is the subclass of the AbstractMap class.
public class Hashtable<K,V> extends Dictionary<K,V> implements Map<K,V>, Cloneable, Serializable { ... }
public class HashMap<K,V> extends AbstractMap<K,V> implements Map<K,V>, Cloneable, Serializable { ... }
« Initial capacity and Load factor
The capacity is the number of buckets in the hash table, and the initial capacity is simply the capacity at the time the hash table is created. Note that the hash table is open: in the case of a "hash
collision
", a single bucket stores multiple entries, which must be searched sequentially. The load factor is a measure of how full the hash table is allowed to get before its capacity is automatically increased.
HashMap constructs an empty hash table with the default initial capacity (16) and the default load factor (0.75). Where as Hashtable constructs empty hashtable with a default initial capacity (11) and load factor/fill ratio (0.75).
« Structural modification in case of hash collision
HashMap
, Hashtable
in case of hash collisions they store the map entries in linked lists. From Java8 for HashMap
if hash bucket grows beyond a certain threshold, that bucket will switch from linked list of entries to a balanced tree
. which improve worst-case performance from O(n) to O(log n). While converting the list to binary tree, hashcode is used as a branching variable. If there are two different hashcodes in the same bucket, one is considered bigger and goes to the right of the tree and other one to the left. But when both the hashcodes are equal, HashMap
assumes that the keys are comparable, and compares the key to determine the direction so that some order can be maintained. It is a good practice to make the keys of HashMap
comparable. On adding entries if bucket size reaches TREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 8
convert linked list of entries to a balanced tree, on removing entries less than TREEIFY_THRESHOLD
and at most UNTREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 6
will reconvert balanced tree to linked list of entries. Java 8 SRC, stackpost
« Collection-view iteration, Fail-Fast and Fail-Safe
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| | Iterator | Enumeration |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Hashtable | fail-fast | safe |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| HashMap | fail-fast | fail-fast |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| ConcurrentHashMap | safe | safe |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
Iterator
is a fail-fast in nature. i.e it throws ConcurrentModificationException if a collection is modified while iterating other than it’s own remove() method. Where as Enumeration
is fail-safe in nature. It doesn’t throw any exceptions if a collection is modified while iterating.
According to Java API Docs, Iterator is always preferred over the Enumeration.
NOTE: The functionality of Enumeration interface is duplicated by the Iterator interface. In addition, Iterator adds an optional remove operation, and has shorter method names. New implementations should consider using Iterator in preference to Enumeration.
In Java 5 introduced ConcurrentMap Interface: ConcurrentHashMap
- a highly concurrent, high-performance ConcurrentMap
implementation backed by a hash table. This implementation never blocks when performing retrievals and allows the client to select the concurrency level for updates. It is intended as a drop-in replacement for Hashtable
: in addition to implementing ConcurrentMap
, it supports all of the "legacy" methods peculiar to Hashtable
.
Each
HashMapEntry
s value is volatile thereby ensuring fine grain consistency for contended modifications and subsequent reads; each read reflects the most recently completed updateIterators and Enumerations are Fail Safe - reflecting the state at some point since the creation of iterator/enumeration; this allows for simultaneous reads and modifications at the cost of reduced consistency. They do not throw ConcurrentModificationException. However, iterators are designed to be used by only one thread at a time.
Like
Hashtable
but unlikeHashMap
, this class does not allow null to be used as a key or value.
public static void main(String args) {
//HashMap<String, Integer> hash = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
Hashtable<String, Integer> hash = new Hashtable<String, Integer>();
//ConcurrentHashMap<String, Integer> hash = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
new Thread() {
@Override public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 10; i < 20; i++) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T1 :- Key"+i);
hash.put("Key"+i, i);
}
System.out.println( System.identityHashCode( hash ) );
} catch ( Exception e ) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
new Thread() {
@Override public void run() {
try {
sleepThread(5);
// ConcurrentHashMap traverse using Iterator, Enumeration is Fail-Safe.
// Hashtable traverse using Enumeration is Fail-Safe, Iterator is Fail-Fast.
for (Enumeration<String> e = hash.keys(); e.hasMoreElements(); ) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T2 : "+ e.nextElement());
}
// HashMap traverse using Iterator, Enumeration is Fail-Fast.
/*
for (Iterator< Entry<String, Integer> > it = hash.entrySet().iterator(); it.hasNext(); ) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T2 : "+ it.next());
// ConcurrentModificationException at java.util.Hashtable$Enumerator.next
}
*/
/*
Set< Entry<String, Integer> > entrySet = hash.entrySet();
Iterator< Entry<String, Integer> > it = entrySet.iterator();
Enumeration<Entry<String, Integer>> entryEnumeration = Collections.enumeration( entrySet );
while( entryEnumeration.hasMoreElements() ) {
sleepThread(1);
Entry<String, Integer> nextElement = entryEnumeration.nextElement();
System.out.println("T2 : "+ nextElement.getKey() +" : "+ nextElement.getValue() );
//java.util.ConcurrentModificationException at java.util.HashMap$HashIterator.nextNode
// at java.util.HashMap$EntryIterator.next
// at java.util.Collections$3.nextElement
}
*/
} catch ( Exception e ) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
Map<String, String> unmodifiableMap = Collections.unmodifiableMap( map );
try {
unmodifiableMap.put("key4", "unmodifiableMap");
} catch (java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException e) {
System.err.println("UnsupportedOperationException : "+ e.getMessage() );
}
}
static void sleepThread( int sec ) {
try {
Thread.sleep( 1000 * sec );
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
« Null Keys And Null Values
HashMap
allows maximum one null key and any number of null values. Where as Hashtable
doesn’t allow even a single null key and null value, if the key or value null is then it throws NullPointerException. Example
« Synchronized, Thread Safe
Hashtable
is internally synchronized. Therefore, it is very much safe to use Hashtable
in multi threaded applications. Where as HashMap
is not internally synchronized. Therefore, it is not safe to use HashMap
in multi threaded applications without external synchronization. You can externally synchronize HashMap
using Collections.synchronizedMap()
method.
« Performance
As Hashtable
is internally synchronized, this makes Hashtable
slightly slower than the HashMap
.
@See
- A red–black tree is a kind of self-balancing binary search tree
- Performance Improvement for
HashMap
in Java 8
add a comment |
A Collection
— sometimes called a container — is simply an object that groups multiple elements into a single unit. Collection
s are used to store, retrieve, manipulate, and communicate aggregate data. A collections framework W is a unified architecture for representing and manipulating collections.
The HashMap
JDK1.2
and Hashtable JDK1.0
, both are used to represent a group of objects that are represented in <Key, Value>
pair. Each <Key, Value>
pair is called Entry
object. The collection of Entries is referred by the object of HashMap
and Hashtable
. Keys in a collection must be unique or distinctive. [as they are used to retrieve a mapped value a particular key. values in a collection can be duplicated.]
« Superclass, Legacy and Collection Framework member
Hashtable is a legacy class introduced in JDK1.0
, which is a subclass of Dictionary class. From JDK1.2
Hashtable is re-engineered to implement the Map interface to make a member of collection framework. HashMap is a member of Java Collection Framework right from the beginning of its introduction in JDK1.2
. HashMap is the subclass of the AbstractMap class.
public class Hashtable<K,V> extends Dictionary<K,V> implements Map<K,V>, Cloneable, Serializable { ... }
public class HashMap<K,V> extends AbstractMap<K,V> implements Map<K,V>, Cloneable, Serializable { ... }
« Initial capacity and Load factor
The capacity is the number of buckets in the hash table, and the initial capacity is simply the capacity at the time the hash table is created. Note that the hash table is open: in the case of a "hash
collision
", a single bucket stores multiple entries, which must be searched sequentially. The load factor is a measure of how full the hash table is allowed to get before its capacity is automatically increased.
HashMap constructs an empty hash table with the default initial capacity (16) and the default load factor (0.75). Where as Hashtable constructs empty hashtable with a default initial capacity (11) and load factor/fill ratio (0.75).
« Structural modification in case of hash collision
HashMap
, Hashtable
in case of hash collisions they store the map entries in linked lists. From Java8 for HashMap
if hash bucket grows beyond a certain threshold, that bucket will switch from linked list of entries to a balanced tree
. which improve worst-case performance from O(n) to O(log n). While converting the list to binary tree, hashcode is used as a branching variable. If there are two different hashcodes in the same bucket, one is considered bigger and goes to the right of the tree and other one to the left. But when both the hashcodes are equal, HashMap
assumes that the keys are comparable, and compares the key to determine the direction so that some order can be maintained. It is a good practice to make the keys of HashMap
comparable. On adding entries if bucket size reaches TREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 8
convert linked list of entries to a balanced tree, on removing entries less than TREEIFY_THRESHOLD
and at most UNTREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 6
will reconvert balanced tree to linked list of entries. Java 8 SRC, stackpost
« Collection-view iteration, Fail-Fast and Fail-Safe
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| | Iterator | Enumeration |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Hashtable | fail-fast | safe |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| HashMap | fail-fast | fail-fast |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| ConcurrentHashMap | safe | safe |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
Iterator
is a fail-fast in nature. i.e it throws ConcurrentModificationException if a collection is modified while iterating other than it’s own remove() method. Where as Enumeration
is fail-safe in nature. It doesn’t throw any exceptions if a collection is modified while iterating.
According to Java API Docs, Iterator is always preferred over the Enumeration.
NOTE: The functionality of Enumeration interface is duplicated by the Iterator interface. In addition, Iterator adds an optional remove operation, and has shorter method names. New implementations should consider using Iterator in preference to Enumeration.
In Java 5 introduced ConcurrentMap Interface: ConcurrentHashMap
- a highly concurrent, high-performance ConcurrentMap
implementation backed by a hash table. This implementation never blocks when performing retrievals and allows the client to select the concurrency level for updates. It is intended as a drop-in replacement for Hashtable
: in addition to implementing ConcurrentMap
, it supports all of the "legacy" methods peculiar to Hashtable
.
Each
HashMapEntry
s value is volatile thereby ensuring fine grain consistency for contended modifications and subsequent reads; each read reflects the most recently completed updateIterators and Enumerations are Fail Safe - reflecting the state at some point since the creation of iterator/enumeration; this allows for simultaneous reads and modifications at the cost of reduced consistency. They do not throw ConcurrentModificationException. However, iterators are designed to be used by only one thread at a time.
Like
Hashtable
but unlikeHashMap
, this class does not allow null to be used as a key or value.
public static void main(String args) {
//HashMap<String, Integer> hash = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
Hashtable<String, Integer> hash = new Hashtable<String, Integer>();
//ConcurrentHashMap<String, Integer> hash = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
new Thread() {
@Override public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 10; i < 20; i++) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T1 :- Key"+i);
hash.put("Key"+i, i);
}
System.out.println( System.identityHashCode( hash ) );
} catch ( Exception e ) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
new Thread() {
@Override public void run() {
try {
sleepThread(5);
// ConcurrentHashMap traverse using Iterator, Enumeration is Fail-Safe.
// Hashtable traverse using Enumeration is Fail-Safe, Iterator is Fail-Fast.
for (Enumeration<String> e = hash.keys(); e.hasMoreElements(); ) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T2 : "+ e.nextElement());
}
// HashMap traverse using Iterator, Enumeration is Fail-Fast.
/*
for (Iterator< Entry<String, Integer> > it = hash.entrySet().iterator(); it.hasNext(); ) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T2 : "+ it.next());
// ConcurrentModificationException at java.util.Hashtable$Enumerator.next
}
*/
/*
Set< Entry<String, Integer> > entrySet = hash.entrySet();
Iterator< Entry<String, Integer> > it = entrySet.iterator();
Enumeration<Entry<String, Integer>> entryEnumeration = Collections.enumeration( entrySet );
while( entryEnumeration.hasMoreElements() ) {
sleepThread(1);
Entry<String, Integer> nextElement = entryEnumeration.nextElement();
System.out.println("T2 : "+ nextElement.getKey() +" : "+ nextElement.getValue() );
//java.util.ConcurrentModificationException at java.util.HashMap$HashIterator.nextNode
// at java.util.HashMap$EntryIterator.next
// at java.util.Collections$3.nextElement
}
*/
} catch ( Exception e ) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
Map<String, String> unmodifiableMap = Collections.unmodifiableMap( map );
try {
unmodifiableMap.put("key4", "unmodifiableMap");
} catch (java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException e) {
System.err.println("UnsupportedOperationException : "+ e.getMessage() );
}
}
static void sleepThread( int sec ) {
try {
Thread.sleep( 1000 * sec );
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
« Null Keys And Null Values
HashMap
allows maximum one null key and any number of null values. Where as Hashtable
doesn’t allow even a single null key and null value, if the key or value null is then it throws NullPointerException. Example
« Synchronized, Thread Safe
Hashtable
is internally synchronized. Therefore, it is very much safe to use Hashtable
in multi threaded applications. Where as HashMap
is not internally synchronized. Therefore, it is not safe to use HashMap
in multi threaded applications without external synchronization. You can externally synchronize HashMap
using Collections.synchronizedMap()
method.
« Performance
As Hashtable
is internally synchronized, this makes Hashtable
slightly slower than the HashMap
.
@See
- A red–black tree is a kind of self-balancing binary search tree
- Performance Improvement for
HashMap
in Java 8
add a comment |
A Collection
— sometimes called a container — is simply an object that groups multiple elements into a single unit. Collection
s are used to store, retrieve, manipulate, and communicate aggregate data. A collections framework W is a unified architecture for representing and manipulating collections.
The HashMap
JDK1.2
and Hashtable JDK1.0
, both are used to represent a group of objects that are represented in <Key, Value>
pair. Each <Key, Value>
pair is called Entry
object. The collection of Entries is referred by the object of HashMap
and Hashtable
. Keys in a collection must be unique or distinctive. [as they are used to retrieve a mapped value a particular key. values in a collection can be duplicated.]
« Superclass, Legacy and Collection Framework member
Hashtable is a legacy class introduced in JDK1.0
, which is a subclass of Dictionary class. From JDK1.2
Hashtable is re-engineered to implement the Map interface to make a member of collection framework. HashMap is a member of Java Collection Framework right from the beginning of its introduction in JDK1.2
. HashMap is the subclass of the AbstractMap class.
public class Hashtable<K,V> extends Dictionary<K,V> implements Map<K,V>, Cloneable, Serializable { ... }
public class HashMap<K,V> extends AbstractMap<K,V> implements Map<K,V>, Cloneable, Serializable { ... }
« Initial capacity and Load factor
The capacity is the number of buckets in the hash table, and the initial capacity is simply the capacity at the time the hash table is created. Note that the hash table is open: in the case of a "hash
collision
", a single bucket stores multiple entries, which must be searched sequentially. The load factor is a measure of how full the hash table is allowed to get before its capacity is automatically increased.
HashMap constructs an empty hash table with the default initial capacity (16) and the default load factor (0.75). Where as Hashtable constructs empty hashtable with a default initial capacity (11) and load factor/fill ratio (0.75).
« Structural modification in case of hash collision
HashMap
, Hashtable
in case of hash collisions they store the map entries in linked lists. From Java8 for HashMap
if hash bucket grows beyond a certain threshold, that bucket will switch from linked list of entries to a balanced tree
. which improve worst-case performance from O(n) to O(log n). While converting the list to binary tree, hashcode is used as a branching variable. If there are two different hashcodes in the same bucket, one is considered bigger and goes to the right of the tree and other one to the left. But when both the hashcodes are equal, HashMap
assumes that the keys are comparable, and compares the key to determine the direction so that some order can be maintained. It is a good practice to make the keys of HashMap
comparable. On adding entries if bucket size reaches TREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 8
convert linked list of entries to a balanced tree, on removing entries less than TREEIFY_THRESHOLD
and at most UNTREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 6
will reconvert balanced tree to linked list of entries. Java 8 SRC, stackpost
« Collection-view iteration, Fail-Fast and Fail-Safe
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| | Iterator | Enumeration |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Hashtable | fail-fast | safe |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| HashMap | fail-fast | fail-fast |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| ConcurrentHashMap | safe | safe |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
Iterator
is a fail-fast in nature. i.e it throws ConcurrentModificationException if a collection is modified while iterating other than it’s own remove() method. Where as Enumeration
is fail-safe in nature. It doesn’t throw any exceptions if a collection is modified while iterating.
According to Java API Docs, Iterator is always preferred over the Enumeration.
NOTE: The functionality of Enumeration interface is duplicated by the Iterator interface. In addition, Iterator adds an optional remove operation, and has shorter method names. New implementations should consider using Iterator in preference to Enumeration.
In Java 5 introduced ConcurrentMap Interface: ConcurrentHashMap
- a highly concurrent, high-performance ConcurrentMap
implementation backed by a hash table. This implementation never blocks when performing retrievals and allows the client to select the concurrency level for updates. It is intended as a drop-in replacement for Hashtable
: in addition to implementing ConcurrentMap
, it supports all of the "legacy" methods peculiar to Hashtable
.
Each
HashMapEntry
s value is volatile thereby ensuring fine grain consistency for contended modifications and subsequent reads; each read reflects the most recently completed updateIterators and Enumerations are Fail Safe - reflecting the state at some point since the creation of iterator/enumeration; this allows for simultaneous reads and modifications at the cost of reduced consistency. They do not throw ConcurrentModificationException. However, iterators are designed to be used by only one thread at a time.
Like
Hashtable
but unlikeHashMap
, this class does not allow null to be used as a key or value.
public static void main(String args) {
//HashMap<String, Integer> hash = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
Hashtable<String, Integer> hash = new Hashtable<String, Integer>();
//ConcurrentHashMap<String, Integer> hash = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
new Thread() {
@Override public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 10; i < 20; i++) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T1 :- Key"+i);
hash.put("Key"+i, i);
}
System.out.println( System.identityHashCode( hash ) );
} catch ( Exception e ) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
new Thread() {
@Override public void run() {
try {
sleepThread(5);
// ConcurrentHashMap traverse using Iterator, Enumeration is Fail-Safe.
// Hashtable traverse using Enumeration is Fail-Safe, Iterator is Fail-Fast.
for (Enumeration<String> e = hash.keys(); e.hasMoreElements(); ) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T2 : "+ e.nextElement());
}
// HashMap traverse using Iterator, Enumeration is Fail-Fast.
/*
for (Iterator< Entry<String, Integer> > it = hash.entrySet().iterator(); it.hasNext(); ) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T2 : "+ it.next());
// ConcurrentModificationException at java.util.Hashtable$Enumerator.next
}
*/
/*
Set< Entry<String, Integer> > entrySet = hash.entrySet();
Iterator< Entry<String, Integer> > it = entrySet.iterator();
Enumeration<Entry<String, Integer>> entryEnumeration = Collections.enumeration( entrySet );
while( entryEnumeration.hasMoreElements() ) {
sleepThread(1);
Entry<String, Integer> nextElement = entryEnumeration.nextElement();
System.out.println("T2 : "+ nextElement.getKey() +" : "+ nextElement.getValue() );
//java.util.ConcurrentModificationException at java.util.HashMap$HashIterator.nextNode
// at java.util.HashMap$EntryIterator.next
// at java.util.Collections$3.nextElement
}
*/
} catch ( Exception e ) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
Map<String, String> unmodifiableMap = Collections.unmodifiableMap( map );
try {
unmodifiableMap.put("key4", "unmodifiableMap");
} catch (java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException e) {
System.err.println("UnsupportedOperationException : "+ e.getMessage() );
}
}
static void sleepThread( int sec ) {
try {
Thread.sleep( 1000 * sec );
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
« Null Keys And Null Values
HashMap
allows maximum one null key and any number of null values. Where as Hashtable
doesn’t allow even a single null key and null value, if the key or value null is then it throws NullPointerException. Example
« Synchronized, Thread Safe
Hashtable
is internally synchronized. Therefore, it is very much safe to use Hashtable
in multi threaded applications. Where as HashMap
is not internally synchronized. Therefore, it is not safe to use HashMap
in multi threaded applications without external synchronization. You can externally synchronize HashMap
using Collections.synchronizedMap()
method.
« Performance
As Hashtable
is internally synchronized, this makes Hashtable
slightly slower than the HashMap
.
@See
- A red–black tree is a kind of self-balancing binary search tree
- Performance Improvement for
HashMap
in Java 8
A Collection
— sometimes called a container — is simply an object that groups multiple elements into a single unit. Collection
s are used to store, retrieve, manipulate, and communicate aggregate data. A collections framework W is a unified architecture for representing and manipulating collections.
The HashMap
JDK1.2
and Hashtable JDK1.0
, both are used to represent a group of objects that are represented in <Key, Value>
pair. Each <Key, Value>
pair is called Entry
object. The collection of Entries is referred by the object of HashMap
and Hashtable
. Keys in a collection must be unique or distinctive. [as they are used to retrieve a mapped value a particular key. values in a collection can be duplicated.]
« Superclass, Legacy and Collection Framework member
Hashtable is a legacy class introduced in JDK1.0
, which is a subclass of Dictionary class. From JDK1.2
Hashtable is re-engineered to implement the Map interface to make a member of collection framework. HashMap is a member of Java Collection Framework right from the beginning of its introduction in JDK1.2
. HashMap is the subclass of the AbstractMap class.
public class Hashtable<K,V> extends Dictionary<K,V> implements Map<K,V>, Cloneable, Serializable { ... }
public class HashMap<K,V> extends AbstractMap<K,V> implements Map<K,V>, Cloneable, Serializable { ... }
« Initial capacity and Load factor
The capacity is the number of buckets in the hash table, and the initial capacity is simply the capacity at the time the hash table is created. Note that the hash table is open: in the case of a "hash
collision
", a single bucket stores multiple entries, which must be searched sequentially. The load factor is a measure of how full the hash table is allowed to get before its capacity is automatically increased.
HashMap constructs an empty hash table with the default initial capacity (16) and the default load factor (0.75). Where as Hashtable constructs empty hashtable with a default initial capacity (11) and load factor/fill ratio (0.75).
« Structural modification in case of hash collision
HashMap
, Hashtable
in case of hash collisions they store the map entries in linked lists. From Java8 for HashMap
if hash bucket grows beyond a certain threshold, that bucket will switch from linked list of entries to a balanced tree
. which improve worst-case performance from O(n) to O(log n). While converting the list to binary tree, hashcode is used as a branching variable. If there are two different hashcodes in the same bucket, one is considered bigger and goes to the right of the tree and other one to the left. But when both the hashcodes are equal, HashMap
assumes that the keys are comparable, and compares the key to determine the direction so that some order can be maintained. It is a good practice to make the keys of HashMap
comparable. On adding entries if bucket size reaches TREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 8
convert linked list of entries to a balanced tree, on removing entries less than TREEIFY_THRESHOLD
and at most UNTREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 6
will reconvert balanced tree to linked list of entries. Java 8 SRC, stackpost
« Collection-view iteration, Fail-Fast and Fail-Safe
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| | Iterator | Enumeration |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Hashtable | fail-fast | safe |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| HashMap | fail-fast | fail-fast |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
| ConcurrentHashMap | safe | safe |
+--------------------+-----------+-------------+
Iterator
is a fail-fast in nature. i.e it throws ConcurrentModificationException if a collection is modified while iterating other than it’s own remove() method. Where as Enumeration
is fail-safe in nature. It doesn’t throw any exceptions if a collection is modified while iterating.
According to Java API Docs, Iterator is always preferred over the Enumeration.
NOTE: The functionality of Enumeration interface is duplicated by the Iterator interface. In addition, Iterator adds an optional remove operation, and has shorter method names. New implementations should consider using Iterator in preference to Enumeration.
In Java 5 introduced ConcurrentMap Interface: ConcurrentHashMap
- a highly concurrent, high-performance ConcurrentMap
implementation backed by a hash table. This implementation never blocks when performing retrievals and allows the client to select the concurrency level for updates. It is intended as a drop-in replacement for Hashtable
: in addition to implementing ConcurrentMap
, it supports all of the "legacy" methods peculiar to Hashtable
.
Each
HashMapEntry
s value is volatile thereby ensuring fine grain consistency for contended modifications and subsequent reads; each read reflects the most recently completed updateIterators and Enumerations are Fail Safe - reflecting the state at some point since the creation of iterator/enumeration; this allows for simultaneous reads and modifications at the cost of reduced consistency. They do not throw ConcurrentModificationException. However, iterators are designed to be used by only one thread at a time.
Like
Hashtable
but unlikeHashMap
, this class does not allow null to be used as a key or value.
public static void main(String args) {
//HashMap<String, Integer> hash = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
Hashtable<String, Integer> hash = new Hashtable<String, Integer>();
//ConcurrentHashMap<String, Integer> hash = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
new Thread() {
@Override public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 10; i < 20; i++) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T1 :- Key"+i);
hash.put("Key"+i, i);
}
System.out.println( System.identityHashCode( hash ) );
} catch ( Exception e ) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
new Thread() {
@Override public void run() {
try {
sleepThread(5);
// ConcurrentHashMap traverse using Iterator, Enumeration is Fail-Safe.
// Hashtable traverse using Enumeration is Fail-Safe, Iterator is Fail-Fast.
for (Enumeration<String> e = hash.keys(); e.hasMoreElements(); ) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T2 : "+ e.nextElement());
}
// HashMap traverse using Iterator, Enumeration is Fail-Fast.
/*
for (Iterator< Entry<String, Integer> > it = hash.entrySet().iterator(); it.hasNext(); ) {
sleepThread(1);
System.out.println("T2 : "+ it.next());
// ConcurrentModificationException at java.util.Hashtable$Enumerator.next
}
*/
/*
Set< Entry<String, Integer> > entrySet = hash.entrySet();
Iterator< Entry<String, Integer> > it = entrySet.iterator();
Enumeration<Entry<String, Integer>> entryEnumeration = Collections.enumeration( entrySet );
while( entryEnumeration.hasMoreElements() ) {
sleepThread(1);
Entry<String, Integer> nextElement = entryEnumeration.nextElement();
System.out.println("T2 : "+ nextElement.getKey() +" : "+ nextElement.getValue() );
//java.util.ConcurrentModificationException at java.util.HashMap$HashIterator.nextNode
// at java.util.HashMap$EntryIterator.next
// at java.util.Collections$3.nextElement
}
*/
} catch ( Exception e ) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
Map<String, String> unmodifiableMap = Collections.unmodifiableMap( map );
try {
unmodifiableMap.put("key4", "unmodifiableMap");
} catch (java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException e) {
System.err.println("UnsupportedOperationException : "+ e.getMessage() );
}
}
static void sleepThread( int sec ) {
try {
Thread.sleep( 1000 * sec );
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
« Null Keys And Null Values
HashMap
allows maximum one null key and any number of null values. Where as Hashtable
doesn’t allow even a single null key and null value, if the key or value null is then it throws NullPointerException. Example
« Synchronized, Thread Safe
Hashtable
is internally synchronized. Therefore, it is very much safe to use Hashtable
in multi threaded applications. Where as HashMap
is not internally synchronized. Therefore, it is not safe to use HashMap
in multi threaded applications without external synchronization. You can externally synchronize HashMap
using Collections.synchronizedMap()
method.
« Performance
As Hashtable
is internally synchronized, this makes Hashtable
slightly slower than the HashMap
.
@See
- A red–black tree is a kind of self-balancing binary search tree
- Performance Improvement for
HashMap
in Java 8
edited Apr 20 '18 at 16:46


Lonely Neuron
2,86731732
2,86731732
answered Jan 4 '18 at 11:58


Yash
4,31712640
4,31712640
add a comment |
add a comment |
For threaded apps, you can often get away with ConcurrentHashMap- depends on your performance requirements.
add a comment |
For threaded apps, you can often get away with ConcurrentHashMap- depends on your performance requirements.
add a comment |
For threaded apps, you can often get away with ConcurrentHashMap- depends on your performance requirements.
For threaded apps, you can often get away with ConcurrentHashMap- depends on your performance requirements.
answered Sep 2 '08 at 22:38
Tim Howland
6,67332244
6,67332244
add a comment |
add a comment |
Apart from the differences already mentioned, it should be noted that since Java 8, HashMap
dynamically replaces the Nodes (linked list) used in each bucket with TreeNodes (red-black tree), so that even if high hash collisions exist, the worst case when searching is
O(log(n)) for HashMap
Vs O(n) in Hashtable
.
*The aforementioned improvement has not been applied to Hashtable
yet, but only to HashMap
, LinkedHashMap
, and ConcurrentHashMap
.
FYI, currently,
TREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 8
: if a bucket contains more than 8 nodes, the linked list is transformed into a balanced tree.
UNTREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 6
: when a bucket becomes too small (due to removal or resizing) the tree is converted back to linked list.
add a comment |
Apart from the differences already mentioned, it should be noted that since Java 8, HashMap
dynamically replaces the Nodes (linked list) used in each bucket with TreeNodes (red-black tree), so that even if high hash collisions exist, the worst case when searching is
O(log(n)) for HashMap
Vs O(n) in Hashtable
.
*The aforementioned improvement has not been applied to Hashtable
yet, but only to HashMap
, LinkedHashMap
, and ConcurrentHashMap
.
FYI, currently,
TREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 8
: if a bucket contains more than 8 nodes, the linked list is transformed into a balanced tree.
UNTREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 6
: when a bucket becomes too small (due to removal or resizing) the tree is converted back to linked list.
add a comment |
Apart from the differences already mentioned, it should be noted that since Java 8, HashMap
dynamically replaces the Nodes (linked list) used in each bucket with TreeNodes (red-black tree), so that even if high hash collisions exist, the worst case when searching is
O(log(n)) for HashMap
Vs O(n) in Hashtable
.
*The aforementioned improvement has not been applied to Hashtable
yet, but only to HashMap
, LinkedHashMap
, and ConcurrentHashMap
.
FYI, currently,
TREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 8
: if a bucket contains more than 8 nodes, the linked list is transformed into a balanced tree.
UNTREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 6
: when a bucket becomes too small (due to removal or resizing) the tree is converted back to linked list.
Apart from the differences already mentioned, it should be noted that since Java 8, HashMap
dynamically replaces the Nodes (linked list) used in each bucket with TreeNodes (red-black tree), so that even if high hash collisions exist, the worst case when searching is
O(log(n)) for HashMap
Vs O(n) in Hashtable
.
*The aforementioned improvement has not been applied to Hashtable
yet, but only to HashMap
, LinkedHashMap
, and ConcurrentHashMap
.
FYI, currently,
TREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 8
: if a bucket contains more than 8 nodes, the linked list is transformed into a balanced tree.
UNTREEIFY_THRESHOLD = 6
: when a bucket becomes too small (due to removal or resizing) the tree is converted back to linked list.
answered May 4 '16 at 15:04


Konstantinos Chalkias
3,32021521
3,32021521
add a comment |
add a comment |
1.Hashmap
and HashTable
both store key and value.
2.Hashmap
can store one key as null
. Hashtable
can't store null
.
3.HashMap
is not synchronized but Hashtable
is synchronized.
4.HashMap
can be synchronized with Collection.SyncronizedMap(map)
Map hashmap = new HashMap();
Map map = Collections.SyncronizedMap(hashmap);
1
the 4th diff is nice, no one mentioned it, thanks
– Rushabh Shah
Aug 10 '15 at 4:06
add a comment |
1.Hashmap
and HashTable
both store key and value.
2.Hashmap
can store one key as null
. Hashtable
can't store null
.
3.HashMap
is not synchronized but Hashtable
is synchronized.
4.HashMap
can be synchronized with Collection.SyncronizedMap(map)
Map hashmap = new HashMap();
Map map = Collections.SyncronizedMap(hashmap);
1
the 4th diff is nice, no one mentioned it, thanks
– Rushabh Shah
Aug 10 '15 at 4:06
add a comment |
1.Hashmap
and HashTable
both store key and value.
2.Hashmap
can store one key as null
. Hashtable
can't store null
.
3.HashMap
is not synchronized but Hashtable
is synchronized.
4.HashMap
can be synchronized with Collection.SyncronizedMap(map)
Map hashmap = new HashMap();
Map map = Collections.SyncronizedMap(hashmap);
1.Hashmap
and HashTable
both store key and value.
2.Hashmap
can store one key as null
. Hashtable
can't store null
.
3.HashMap
is not synchronized but Hashtable
is synchronized.
4.HashMap
can be synchronized with Collection.SyncronizedMap(map)
Map hashmap = new HashMap();
Map map = Collections.SyncronizedMap(hashmap);
edited Mar 22 '15 at 15:43


Jared Burrows
39.5k18121152
39.5k18121152
answered Aug 27 '14 at 11:29


Rahul Tripathi
2901515
2901515
1
the 4th diff is nice, no one mentioned it, thanks
– Rushabh Shah
Aug 10 '15 at 4:06
add a comment |
1
the 4th diff is nice, no one mentioned it, thanks
– Rushabh Shah
Aug 10 '15 at 4:06
1
1
the 4th diff is nice, no one mentioned it, thanks
– Rushabh Shah
Aug 10 '15 at 4:06
the 4th diff is nice, no one mentioned it, thanks
– Rushabh Shah
Aug 10 '15 at 4:06
add a comment |
There are 5 basic differentiations with HashTable and HashMaps.
- Maps allows you to iterate and retrieve keys, values, and both key-value pairs as well, Where HashTable don't have all this capability.
- In Hashtable there is a function contains(), which is very confusing to use. Because the meaning of contains is slightly deviating. Whether it means contains key or contains value? tough to understand. Same thing in Maps we have ContainsKey() and ContainsValue() functions, which are very easy to understand.
- In hashmap you can remove element while iterating, safely. where as it is not possible in hashtables.
- HashTables are by default synchronized, so it can be used with multiple threads easily. Where as HashMaps are not synchronized by default, so can be used with only single thread. But you can still convert HashMap to synchronized by using Collections util class's synchronizedMap(Map m) function.
- HashTable won't allow null keys or null values. Where as HashMap allows one null key, and multiple null values.
add a comment |
There are 5 basic differentiations with HashTable and HashMaps.
- Maps allows you to iterate and retrieve keys, values, and both key-value pairs as well, Where HashTable don't have all this capability.
- In Hashtable there is a function contains(), which is very confusing to use. Because the meaning of contains is slightly deviating. Whether it means contains key or contains value? tough to understand. Same thing in Maps we have ContainsKey() and ContainsValue() functions, which are very easy to understand.
- In hashmap you can remove element while iterating, safely. where as it is not possible in hashtables.
- HashTables are by default synchronized, so it can be used with multiple threads easily. Where as HashMaps are not synchronized by default, so can be used with only single thread. But you can still convert HashMap to synchronized by using Collections util class's synchronizedMap(Map m) function.
- HashTable won't allow null keys or null values. Where as HashMap allows one null key, and multiple null values.
add a comment |
There are 5 basic differentiations with HashTable and HashMaps.
- Maps allows you to iterate and retrieve keys, values, and both key-value pairs as well, Where HashTable don't have all this capability.
- In Hashtable there is a function contains(), which is very confusing to use. Because the meaning of contains is slightly deviating. Whether it means contains key or contains value? tough to understand. Same thing in Maps we have ContainsKey() and ContainsValue() functions, which are very easy to understand.
- In hashmap you can remove element while iterating, safely. where as it is not possible in hashtables.
- HashTables are by default synchronized, so it can be used with multiple threads easily. Where as HashMaps are not synchronized by default, so can be used with only single thread. But you can still convert HashMap to synchronized by using Collections util class's synchronizedMap(Map m) function.
- HashTable won't allow null keys or null values. Where as HashMap allows one null key, and multiple null values.
There are 5 basic differentiations with HashTable and HashMaps.
- Maps allows you to iterate and retrieve keys, values, and both key-value pairs as well, Where HashTable don't have all this capability.
- In Hashtable there is a function contains(), which is very confusing to use. Because the meaning of contains is slightly deviating. Whether it means contains key or contains value? tough to understand. Same thing in Maps we have ContainsKey() and ContainsValue() functions, which are very easy to understand.
- In hashmap you can remove element while iterating, safely. where as it is not possible in hashtables.
- HashTables are by default synchronized, so it can be used with multiple threads easily. Where as HashMaps are not synchronized by default, so can be used with only single thread. But you can still convert HashMap to synchronized by using Collections util class's synchronizedMap(Map m) function.
- HashTable won't allow null keys or null values. Where as HashMap allows one null key, and multiple null values.
edited Apr 10 '14 at 15:44
Brad Larson♦
161k40363541
161k40363541
answered Dec 11 '13 at 12:45
user1923551
3,7762725
3,7762725
add a comment |
add a comment |
My small contribution :
First and most significant different between
Hashtable
andHashMap
is that,HashMap
is not thread-safe whileHashtable
is a thread-safe collection.
Second important difference between
Hashtable
andHashMap
is performance, sinceHashMap
is not synchronized it perform better thanHashtable
.
Third difference on
Hashtable
vsHashMap
is thatHashtable
is obsolete class and you should be usingConcurrentHashMap
in place ofHashtable
in Java.
add a comment |
My small contribution :
First and most significant different between
Hashtable
andHashMap
is that,HashMap
is not thread-safe whileHashtable
is a thread-safe collection.
Second important difference between
Hashtable
andHashMap
is performance, sinceHashMap
is not synchronized it perform better thanHashtable
.
Third difference on
Hashtable
vsHashMap
is thatHashtable
is obsolete class and you should be usingConcurrentHashMap
in place ofHashtable
in Java.
add a comment |
My small contribution :
First and most significant different between
Hashtable
andHashMap
is that,HashMap
is not thread-safe whileHashtable
is a thread-safe collection.
Second important difference between
Hashtable
andHashMap
is performance, sinceHashMap
is not synchronized it perform better thanHashtable
.
Third difference on
Hashtable
vsHashMap
is thatHashtable
is obsolete class and you should be usingConcurrentHashMap
in place ofHashtable
in Java.
My small contribution :
First and most significant different between
Hashtable
andHashMap
is that,HashMap
is not thread-safe whileHashtable
is a thread-safe collection.
Second important difference between
Hashtable
andHashMap
is performance, sinceHashMap
is not synchronized it perform better thanHashtable
.
Third difference on
Hashtable
vsHashMap
is thatHashtable
is obsolete class and you should be usingConcurrentHashMap
in place ofHashtable
in Java.
edited Mar 22 '15 at 15:44


Jared Burrows
39.5k18121152
39.5k18121152
answered Mar 18 '14 at 21:46


Shreyos Adikari
7,922165573
7,922165573
add a comment |
add a comment |
HashTable is a legacy class in the jdk that shouldn't be used anymore. Replace usages of it with ConcurrentHashMap. If you don't require thread safety, use HashMap which isn't threadsafe but faster and uses less memory.
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:06
Because I thought the other answers, at the time, didn't dismiss HashTable but explained that it was threadsafe. The truth is that as soon as you see HashTable in code, you should replace it with ConcurrentHashMap without skipping a beat. And if thread safety is not a concern then HashMap can be used to improve performance a bit.
– jontejj
Aug 7 '15 at 8:29
add a comment |
HashTable is a legacy class in the jdk that shouldn't be used anymore. Replace usages of it with ConcurrentHashMap. If you don't require thread safety, use HashMap which isn't threadsafe but faster and uses less memory.
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:06
Because I thought the other answers, at the time, didn't dismiss HashTable but explained that it was threadsafe. The truth is that as soon as you see HashTable in code, you should replace it with ConcurrentHashMap without skipping a beat. And if thread safety is not a concern then HashMap can be used to improve performance a bit.
– jontejj
Aug 7 '15 at 8:29
add a comment |
HashTable is a legacy class in the jdk that shouldn't be used anymore. Replace usages of it with ConcurrentHashMap. If you don't require thread safety, use HashMap which isn't threadsafe but faster and uses less memory.
HashTable is a legacy class in the jdk that shouldn't be used anymore. Replace usages of it with ConcurrentHashMap. If you don't require thread safety, use HashMap which isn't threadsafe but faster and uses less memory.
edited Apr 21 '13 at 17:27
answered Apr 15 '13 at 14:49
jontejj
1,9921824
1,9921824
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:06
Because I thought the other answers, at the time, didn't dismiss HashTable but explained that it was threadsafe. The truth is that as soon as you see HashTable in code, you should replace it with ConcurrentHashMap without skipping a beat. And if thread safety is not a concern then HashMap can be used to improve performance a bit.
– jontejj
Aug 7 '15 at 8:29
add a comment |
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:06
Because I thought the other answers, at the time, didn't dismiss HashTable but explained that it was threadsafe. The truth is that as soon as you see HashTable in code, you should replace it with ConcurrentHashMap without skipping a beat. And if thread safety is not a concern then HashMap can be used to improve performance a bit.
– jontejj
Aug 7 '15 at 8:29
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:06
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:06
Because I thought the other answers, at the time, didn't dismiss HashTable but explained that it was threadsafe. The truth is that as soon as you see HashTable in code, you should replace it with ConcurrentHashMap without skipping a beat. And if thread safety is not a concern then HashMap can be used to improve performance a bit.
– jontejj
Aug 7 '15 at 8:29
Because I thought the other answers, at the time, didn't dismiss HashTable but explained that it was threadsafe. The truth is that as soon as you see HashTable in code, you should replace it with ConcurrentHashMap without skipping a beat. And if thread safety is not a concern then HashMap can be used to improve performance a bit.
– jontejj
Aug 7 '15 at 8:29
add a comment |
1)Hashtable is synchronized whereas hashmap is not.
2)Another difference is that iterator in the HashMap is fail-safe while the enumerator for the Hashtable isn't. If you change the map while iterating, you'll know.
3)HashMap permits null values in it, while Hashtable doesn't.
3
HashMap iterator is fail-fast not fail-safe. Thats why we have ConcurrentHashMap that allows modification while iteration. Check this post journaldev.com/122/…
– Pankaj
Jan 28 '13 at 21:13
3
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
add a comment |
1)Hashtable is synchronized whereas hashmap is not.
2)Another difference is that iterator in the HashMap is fail-safe while the enumerator for the Hashtable isn't. If you change the map while iterating, you'll know.
3)HashMap permits null values in it, while Hashtable doesn't.
3
HashMap iterator is fail-fast not fail-safe. Thats why we have ConcurrentHashMap that allows modification while iteration. Check this post journaldev.com/122/…
– Pankaj
Jan 28 '13 at 21:13
3
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
add a comment |
1)Hashtable is synchronized whereas hashmap is not.
2)Another difference is that iterator in the HashMap is fail-safe while the enumerator for the Hashtable isn't. If you change the map while iterating, you'll know.
3)HashMap permits null values in it, while Hashtable doesn't.
1)Hashtable is synchronized whereas hashmap is not.
2)Another difference is that iterator in the HashMap is fail-safe while the enumerator for the Hashtable isn't. If you change the map while iterating, you'll know.
3)HashMap permits null values in it, while Hashtable doesn't.
answered Jan 22 '13 at 5:31


raja
1,96321721
1,96321721
3
HashMap iterator is fail-fast not fail-safe. Thats why we have ConcurrentHashMap that allows modification while iteration. Check this post journaldev.com/122/…
– Pankaj
Jan 28 '13 at 21:13
3
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
add a comment |
3
HashMap iterator is fail-fast not fail-safe. Thats why we have ConcurrentHashMap that allows modification while iteration. Check this post journaldev.com/122/…
– Pankaj
Jan 28 '13 at 21:13
3
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
3
3
HashMap iterator is fail-fast not fail-safe. Thats why we have ConcurrentHashMap that allows modification while iteration. Check this post journaldev.com/122/…
– Pankaj
Jan 28 '13 at 21:13
HashMap iterator is fail-fast not fail-safe. Thats why we have ConcurrentHashMap that allows modification while iteration. Check this post journaldev.com/122/…
– Pankaj
Jan 28 '13 at 21:13
3
3
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
add a comment |
Hashtable:
Hashtable is a data structure that retains values of key-value pair. It doesn’t allow null for both the keys and the values. You will get a NullPointerException
if you add null value. It is synchronized. So it comes with its cost. Only one thread can access HashTable at a particular time.
Example :
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Hashtable;
public class TestClass {
public static void main(String args[ ]) {
Map<Integer,String> states= new Hashtable<Integer,String>();
states.put(1, "INDIA");
states.put(2, "USA");
states.put(3, null); //will throw NullPointerEcxeption at runtime
System.out.println(states.get(1));
System.out.println(states.get(2));
// System.out.println(states.get(3));
}
}
HashMap:
HashMap is like Hashtable but it also accepts key value pair. It allows null for both the keys and the values. Its performance better is better than HashTable
, because it is unsynchronized
.
Example:
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
public class TestClass {
public static void main(String args[ ]) {
Map<Integer,String> states = new HashMap<Integer,String>();
states.put(1, "INDIA");
states.put(2, "USA");
states.put(3, null); // Okay
states.put(null,"UK");
System.out.println(states.get(1));
System.out.println(states.get(2));
System.out.println(states.get(3));
}
}
add a comment |
Hashtable:
Hashtable is a data structure that retains values of key-value pair. It doesn’t allow null for both the keys and the values. You will get a NullPointerException
if you add null value. It is synchronized. So it comes with its cost. Only one thread can access HashTable at a particular time.
Example :
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Hashtable;
public class TestClass {
public static void main(String args[ ]) {
Map<Integer,String> states= new Hashtable<Integer,String>();
states.put(1, "INDIA");
states.put(2, "USA");
states.put(3, null); //will throw NullPointerEcxeption at runtime
System.out.println(states.get(1));
System.out.println(states.get(2));
// System.out.println(states.get(3));
}
}
HashMap:
HashMap is like Hashtable but it also accepts key value pair. It allows null for both the keys and the values. Its performance better is better than HashTable
, because it is unsynchronized
.
Example:
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
public class TestClass {
public static void main(String args[ ]) {
Map<Integer,String> states = new HashMap<Integer,String>();
states.put(1, "INDIA");
states.put(2, "USA");
states.put(3, null); // Okay
states.put(null,"UK");
System.out.println(states.get(1));
System.out.println(states.get(2));
System.out.println(states.get(3));
}
}
add a comment |
Hashtable:
Hashtable is a data structure that retains values of key-value pair. It doesn’t allow null for both the keys and the values. You will get a NullPointerException
if you add null value. It is synchronized. So it comes with its cost. Only one thread can access HashTable at a particular time.
Example :
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Hashtable;
public class TestClass {
public static void main(String args[ ]) {
Map<Integer,String> states= new Hashtable<Integer,String>();
states.put(1, "INDIA");
states.put(2, "USA");
states.put(3, null); //will throw NullPointerEcxeption at runtime
System.out.println(states.get(1));
System.out.println(states.get(2));
// System.out.println(states.get(3));
}
}
HashMap:
HashMap is like Hashtable but it also accepts key value pair. It allows null for both the keys and the values. Its performance better is better than HashTable
, because it is unsynchronized
.
Example:
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
public class TestClass {
public static void main(String args[ ]) {
Map<Integer,String> states = new HashMap<Integer,String>();
states.put(1, "INDIA");
states.put(2, "USA");
states.put(3, null); // Okay
states.put(null,"UK");
System.out.println(states.get(1));
System.out.println(states.get(2));
System.out.println(states.get(3));
}
}
Hashtable:
Hashtable is a data structure that retains values of key-value pair. It doesn’t allow null for both the keys and the values. You will get a NullPointerException
if you add null value. It is synchronized. So it comes with its cost. Only one thread can access HashTable at a particular time.
Example :
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Hashtable;
public class TestClass {
public static void main(String args[ ]) {
Map<Integer,String> states= new Hashtable<Integer,String>();
states.put(1, "INDIA");
states.put(2, "USA");
states.put(3, null); //will throw NullPointerEcxeption at runtime
System.out.println(states.get(1));
System.out.println(states.get(2));
// System.out.println(states.get(3));
}
}
HashMap:
HashMap is like Hashtable but it also accepts key value pair. It allows null for both the keys and the values. Its performance better is better than HashTable
, because it is unsynchronized
.
Example:
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
public class TestClass {
public static void main(String args[ ]) {
Map<Integer,String> states = new HashMap<Integer,String>();
states.put(1, "INDIA");
states.put(2, "USA");
states.put(3, null); // Okay
states.put(null,"UK");
System.out.println(states.get(1));
System.out.println(states.get(2));
System.out.println(states.get(3));
}
}
edited Apr 26 '16 at 9:46


manojgolty
9217
9217
answered Feb 10 '15 at 7:44


IntelliJ Amiya
52.4k12111131
52.4k12111131
add a comment |
add a comment |
HashMap and HashTable
- Some important points about HashMap and HashTable.
please read below details.
1) Hashtable and Hashmap implement the java.util.Map interface
2) Both Hashmap and Hashtable is the hash based collection. and working on hashing.
so these are similarity of HashMap and HashTable.
- What is the difference between HashMap and HashTable?
1) First difference is HashMap is not thread safe While HashTable is ThreadSafe
2) HashMap is performance wise better because it is not thread safe. while Hashtable performance wise is not better because it is thread safe. so multiple thread can not access Hashtable at the same time.
1
Down-voted because this answer is not correct in some aspects. Hashtable does not implement the Map interface, but only extends the Dictionary class, which is obsolete.
– Yannis Sermetziadis
Oct 25 '17 at 5:42
add a comment |
HashMap and HashTable
- Some important points about HashMap and HashTable.
please read below details.
1) Hashtable and Hashmap implement the java.util.Map interface
2) Both Hashmap and Hashtable is the hash based collection. and working on hashing.
so these are similarity of HashMap and HashTable.
- What is the difference between HashMap and HashTable?
1) First difference is HashMap is not thread safe While HashTable is ThreadSafe
2) HashMap is performance wise better because it is not thread safe. while Hashtable performance wise is not better because it is thread safe. so multiple thread can not access Hashtable at the same time.
1
Down-voted because this answer is not correct in some aspects. Hashtable does not implement the Map interface, but only extends the Dictionary class, which is obsolete.
– Yannis Sermetziadis
Oct 25 '17 at 5:42
add a comment |
HashMap and HashTable
- Some important points about HashMap and HashTable.
please read below details.
1) Hashtable and Hashmap implement the java.util.Map interface
2) Both Hashmap and Hashtable is the hash based collection. and working on hashing.
so these are similarity of HashMap and HashTable.
- What is the difference between HashMap and HashTable?
1) First difference is HashMap is not thread safe While HashTable is ThreadSafe
2) HashMap is performance wise better because it is not thread safe. while Hashtable performance wise is not better because it is thread safe. so multiple thread can not access Hashtable at the same time.
HashMap and HashTable
- Some important points about HashMap and HashTable.
please read below details.
1) Hashtable and Hashmap implement the java.util.Map interface
2) Both Hashmap and Hashtable is the hash based collection. and working on hashing.
so these are similarity of HashMap and HashTable.
- What is the difference between HashMap and HashTable?
1) First difference is HashMap is not thread safe While HashTable is ThreadSafe
2) HashMap is performance wise better because it is not thread safe. while Hashtable performance wise is not better because it is thread safe. so multiple thread can not access Hashtable at the same time.
edited Jul 25 '17 at 14:59


Pawan Patil
508622
508622
answered Jul 5 '14 at 6:27


JegsVala
1,0701221
1,0701221
1
Down-voted because this answer is not correct in some aspects. Hashtable does not implement the Map interface, but only extends the Dictionary class, which is obsolete.
– Yannis Sermetziadis
Oct 25 '17 at 5:42
add a comment |
1
Down-voted because this answer is not correct in some aspects. Hashtable does not implement the Map interface, but only extends the Dictionary class, which is obsolete.
– Yannis Sermetziadis
Oct 25 '17 at 5:42
1
1
Down-voted because this answer is not correct in some aspects. Hashtable does not implement the Map interface, but only extends the Dictionary class, which is obsolete.
– Yannis Sermetziadis
Oct 25 '17 at 5:42
Down-voted because this answer is not correct in some aspects. Hashtable does not implement the Map interface, but only extends the Dictionary class, which is obsolete.
– Yannis Sermetziadis
Oct 25 '17 at 5:42
add a comment |
HashMap: It is a class available inside java.util package and it is used to store the element in key and value format.
Hashtable: It is a legacy class which is being recognized inside collection framework.
4
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
add a comment |
HashMap: It is a class available inside java.util package and it is used to store the element in key and value format.
Hashtable: It is a legacy class which is being recognized inside collection framework.
4
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
add a comment |
HashMap: It is a class available inside java.util package and it is used to store the element in key and value format.
Hashtable: It is a legacy class which is being recognized inside collection framework.
HashMap: It is a class available inside java.util package and it is used to store the element in key and value format.
Hashtable: It is a legacy class which is being recognized inside collection framework.
edited Dec 28 '18 at 2:05


Pang
6,8611563101
6,8611563101
answered Jan 31 '13 at 13:41
Ankit
12016
12016
4
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
add a comment |
4
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
4
4
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:02
add a comment |
HashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier
2
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:03
2
What does ~"freedom of synchronization" mean?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:03
add a comment |
HashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier
2
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:03
2
What does ~"freedom of synchronization" mean?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:03
add a comment |
HashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier
HashMaps gives you freedom of synchronization and debugging is lot more easier
answered Aug 9 '12 at 12:28
user1506047
2
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:03
2
What does ~"freedom of synchronization" mean?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:03
add a comment |
2
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:03
2
What does ~"freedom of synchronization" mean?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:03
2
2
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:03
Why are you repeating an already given answer?
– BalusC
Aug 6 '15 at 8:03
2
2
What does ~"freedom of synchronization" mean?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:03
What does ~"freedom of synchronization" mean?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:03
add a comment |
HashMap
is emulated and therefore usable in GWT client code
whereas Hashtable
is not.
Is that a comprehensive description of differences between the two apis?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:04
Yes (sic!). That's all GWT developers need to know about it.
– pong
Mar 24 '17 at 19:41
add a comment |
HashMap
is emulated and therefore usable in GWT client code
whereas Hashtable
is not.
Is that a comprehensive description of differences between the two apis?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:04
Yes (sic!). That's all GWT developers need to know about it.
– pong
Mar 24 '17 at 19:41
add a comment |
HashMap
is emulated and therefore usable in GWT client code
whereas Hashtable
is not.
HashMap
is emulated and therefore usable in GWT client code
whereas Hashtable
is not.
answered Jul 15 '13 at 9:54
pong
454311
454311
Is that a comprehensive description of differences between the two apis?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:04
Yes (sic!). That's all GWT developers need to know about it.
– pong
Mar 24 '17 at 19:41
add a comment |
Is that a comprehensive description of differences between the two apis?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:04
Yes (sic!). That's all GWT developers need to know about it.
– pong
Mar 24 '17 at 19:41
Is that a comprehensive description of differences between the two apis?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:04
Is that a comprehensive description of differences between the two apis?
– IgorGanapolsky
Mar 24 '17 at 19:04
Yes (sic!). That's all GWT developers need to know about it.
– pong
Mar 24 '17 at 19:41
Yes (sic!). That's all GWT developers need to know about it.
– pong
Mar 24 '17 at 19:41
add a comment |
Synchronization or Thread Safe :
Hash Map is not synchronized hence it is not thred safe and it cannot be shared between multiple threads without proper synchronized block whereas, Hashtable is synchronized and hence it is thread safe.
Null keys and null values :
HashMap allows one null key and any number of null values.Hashtable does not allow null keys or values.
Iterating the values:
Iterator in the HashMap is a fail-fast iterator while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator’s own remove() method.
Superclass and Legacy :
HashMap is subclass of AbstractMap class whereas Hashtable is subclass of Dictionary class.
Performance :
As HashMap is not synchronized it is faster as compared to Hashtable.
Refer http://modernpathshala.com/Article/1020/difference-between-hashmap-and-hashtable-in-java for examples and interview questions and quiz related to Java collection
add a comment |
Synchronization or Thread Safe :
Hash Map is not synchronized hence it is not thred safe and it cannot be shared between multiple threads without proper synchronized block whereas, Hashtable is synchronized and hence it is thread safe.
Null keys and null values :
HashMap allows one null key and any number of null values.Hashtable does not allow null keys or values.
Iterating the values:
Iterator in the HashMap is a fail-fast iterator while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator’s own remove() method.
Superclass and Legacy :
HashMap is subclass of AbstractMap class whereas Hashtable is subclass of Dictionary class.
Performance :
As HashMap is not synchronized it is faster as compared to Hashtable.
Refer http://modernpathshala.com/Article/1020/difference-between-hashmap-and-hashtable-in-java for examples and interview questions and quiz related to Java collection
add a comment |
Synchronization or Thread Safe :
Hash Map is not synchronized hence it is not thred safe and it cannot be shared between multiple threads without proper synchronized block whereas, Hashtable is synchronized and hence it is thread safe.
Null keys and null values :
HashMap allows one null key and any number of null values.Hashtable does not allow null keys or values.
Iterating the values:
Iterator in the HashMap is a fail-fast iterator while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator’s own remove() method.
Superclass and Legacy :
HashMap is subclass of AbstractMap class whereas Hashtable is subclass of Dictionary class.
Performance :
As HashMap is not synchronized it is faster as compared to Hashtable.
Refer http://modernpathshala.com/Article/1020/difference-between-hashmap-and-hashtable-in-java for examples and interview questions and quiz related to Java collection
Synchronization or Thread Safe :
Hash Map is not synchronized hence it is not thred safe and it cannot be shared between multiple threads without proper synchronized block whereas, Hashtable is synchronized and hence it is thread safe.
Null keys and null values :
HashMap allows one null key and any number of null values.Hashtable does not allow null keys or values.
Iterating the values:
Iterator in the HashMap is a fail-fast iterator while the enumerator for the Hashtable is not and throw ConcurrentModificationException if any other Thread modifies the map structurally by adding or removing any element except Iterator’s own remove() method.
Superclass and Legacy :
HashMap is subclass of AbstractMap class whereas Hashtable is subclass of Dictionary class.
Performance :
As HashMap is not synchronized it is faster as compared to Hashtable.
Refer http://modernpathshala.com/Article/1020/difference-between-hashmap-and-hashtable-in-java for examples and interview questions and quiz related to Java collection
edited Apr 10 '16 at 4:46
answered Jan 5 '16 at 18:35
amitguptageek
444211
444211
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 2
next
protected by Community♦ Mar 16 '12 at 19:13
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
5
HashTable is obsolete in Java 1.7 and it is recommended to use ConcurrentMap implementation
– MissFiona
Apr 9 '17 at 22:10