blocks|key|666715|text|TreeSet/TreeMap对ass+add()、contains()+(+TreeSet)、put()、containsKey()+(+TreeMap)等操作具有较高的时间复杂度。因为它们需要对数时间来定位树中的元素(或者将元素添加到树中)，而LinkedHashSet/LinkedHashMap则需要这些操作的预期恒定时间。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|666716|在内存需求方面，有一个很小的差别：|666717|TreeMap条目包含键、值、3个Entry引用(左、右、父)和一个boolean。|unordered-list-item|666718|LinkedHashMap条目包含键、值、3个Entry引用(接下来、之前、之后)和一个int。|666719|entityMap^0|0|7|8|7|K|5|Q|A|13|7|1C|5|1I|D|1Y|7|3G|D|3U|D|0|0|0|7|H|5|Y|7|0|0|D|N|5|18|3|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|O|8|@$9|P|A|Q|B|C]|$9|R|A|S|B|C]|$9|T|A|U|B|C]|$9|V|A|W|B|C]|$9|X|A|Y|B|C]|$9|Z|A|10|B|C]|$9|11|A|12|B|C]|$9|13|A|14|B|C]|$9|15|A|16|B|C]|$9|17|A|18|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|19|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|J|7|1A|8|@$9|1B|A|1C|B|C]|$9|1D|A|1E|B|C]|$9|1F|A|1G|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|K|3|L|5|J|7|1H|8|@$9|1I|A|1J|B|C]|$9|1K|A|1L|B|C]|$9|1M|A|1N|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|M|3|-4|5|6|7|1O|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|N|$]]

<code>TreeSet</code>/<code>TreeMap</code> have a higher time complexity for operations such ass <code>add()</code>, <code>contains()</code> (for <code>TreeSet</code>), <code>put()</code>, <code>containsKey()</code> (for <code>TreeMap</code>), etc... since they require logarithmic time to locate elements in the tree (or add elements to the tree), while <code>LinkedHashSet</code>/<code>LinkedHashMap</code> require expected constant time for those operations.

In terms of memory requirements, there's a very small difference:

<ul>
<li><code>TreeMap</code> entries hold key, value, 3 <code>Entry</code> references (left, right, parent) and a <code>boolean</code>.</li>
<li><code>LinkedHashMap</code> entries hold key, value, 3 <code>Entry</code> references (next, before, after) and an <code>int</code>.</li>
</ul>

blocks|key|666737|text|当迭代一个HashSet时，迭代顺序通常是对象的散列的顺序，如果您想要一个可预测的顺序，这通常不会太有用。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|666738|如果合理的排序很重要，那么通常需要使用一个TreeSet，它按排序顺序迭代，但代价是，因为维护排序顺序会增加流程的复杂性。|666739|通过使用插入顺序确保迭代顺序至少是一致的，LinkedHashSet可以作为一个看似疯狂的HashSet排序的中间解决方案。|style|CODE|666740|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/HashSet.html|1|https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/TreeSet.html|2|https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/LinkedHashSet.html^0|5|7|0|0|L|7|1|0|19|7|L|D|2|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|V|8|@]|9|@$A|W|B|X|1|Y]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|Z|8|@]|9|@$A|10|B|11|1|12]]|C|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|13|8|@$A|14|B|15|H|I]]|9|@$A|16|B|17|1|18]]|C|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|19|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|K|$L|$5|M|N|O|C|$P|Q]]|R|$5|M|N|O|C|$P|S]]|T|$5|M|N|O|C|$P|U]]]]

When iterating a <a href="https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/HashSet.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">HashSet</a>, the iteration order is generally the order of the hash of the object, which is generally not too useful if you want a predictable order.

If sane ordering is important you would generally need to use a <a href="https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/TreeSet.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">TreeSet</a> which iterates in sorted order but at a cost because maintaining the sorted order adds to the complexity of the process.

A <a href="https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/LinkedHashSet.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">LinkedHashSet</a> can be used as a middle-ground solution to the seemingly insane ordering of a <code>HashSet</code> by ensuring that the iteration order is at least consistent by using the insertion order.

<a href="https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/LinkedHashSet.html" rel="noreferrer">LinkedHashSet</a> - This implementation spares its clients from the unspecified, generally chaotic ordering provided by HashSet, without incurring the increased cost associated with TreeSet. 

Same is said about LinkedHashMap vs TreeMap

What is this increased cost (LinkedHashMap vs TreeMap) exactly?

Does that mean that TreeSet needs more memory per element? LinkedHashSet needs more memory for two additional links, but TreeSet needs additional memory to store Map.Entry pair of elements (because implicitly based on TreeMap), besides LinkedHashSet is based on HashMap which also has Map.Entry pair of elements overhead... 

So the difference is how fast a new element is added (in case of TreeSet it takes longer due to some "sorting").

What are other significant increased costs?

What is increased cost of TreeSet vs LinkedHashSet and TreeMap over LinkedHashMap?

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

 -此实现使其客户端免于HashSet提供的未指定的、通常是混乱的排序，而不引起与TreeSet相关的增加的成本。关于LinkedHashMap与TreeMap的关系也是如此这到底是什么增加的成本(LinkedHashMap对TreeMap)？这是否意味着TreeSet每个元素需要更多的内存？LinkedHashSet...

问什么是TreeSet与LinkedHashSet和TreeMap相对于LinkedHashMap的成本增加？
EN

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问什么是TreeSet与LinkedHashSet和TreeMap相对于LinkedHashMap的成本增加？EN

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问什么是TreeSet与LinkedHashSet和TreeMap相对于LinkedHashMap的成本增加？
EN