* safe to do so. The exact circumstances under which a copy will or will not be performed are
   * undocumented and subject to change.
   *
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if two keys have the same value or two values have the same
   *     key
   * @throws NullPointerException if any key or value in {@code map} is null
   */

     * {@link #equals(Object)}, they have the same hashcode.
     *
     * @return a hash code value for this request
     */
    @Override
    int hashCode();

    /**
     * Returns {@code true} if the specified object is equal to this request.
     * Two requests are considered equal if they have the same type and all
     * significant fields are equal.
     *

But in many cases, you will want to run several worker processes at the same time.

### Multiple Processes - Workers { #multiple-processes-workers }

If you have more clients than what a single process can handle (for example if the virtual machine is not too big) and you have **multiple cores** in the server's CPU, then you could have **multiple processes** running with the same application at the same time, and distribute all the requests among them.

    @Weak @Nullable Node<K, V> previous; // the previous node (with any key)
    @Nullable Node<K, V> nextSibling; // the next node with the same key
    @Weak @Nullable Node<K, V> previousSibling; // the previous node with the same key

    Node(@ParametricNullness K key, @ParametricNullness V value) {
      super(key, value);
    }
  }

    // value will then be replaced by null, signaling that later entries with the same key should
    // be deleted.
    Map<K, @Nullable V> duplicates = null;
    int dupCount = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
      // requireNonNull is safe because the first `n` elements have been filled in.
      entryArray[i] = makeImmutable(requireNonNull(entryArray[i]));
      K key = entryArray[i].getKey();

 * ImmutableListMultimap}, which have well-defined {@link #equals} semantics, thus avoiding a common
 * source of bugs and confusion.
 *
 * <p><b>Note:</b> every {@link ImmutableMultimap} offers an {@link #inverse} view, so there is no
 * need for a distinct {@code ImmutableBiMultimap} type.
 *
 * <p><a id="iteration"></a>
 *
 * <p><b>Key-grouped iteration.</b> All view collections follow the same iteration order. In all

 * second invocation, so implementors have made various choices, including:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>returning the same iterator again
 *   <li>throwing an exception of some kind
 *   <li>or the usual, <i>robust</i> behavior, which all known {@link Collection} implementations
 *       have, of returning a new, independent iterator
 * </ul>
 *

    }

    boolean empty;
    if (effectiveRange.isEmpty()) {
      empty = true;
    } else {
      /*
       * requireNonNull is safe because the effectiveRange operations above would have thrown or
       * effectiveRange.isEmpty() would have returned true.
       */
      C afterLower = requireNonNull(range.lowerBound.leastValueAbove(domain));

 *
 * <p>This uses the same efficient implementation as {@link Ordering#leastOf(Iterable, int)},
 * offering expected O(n + k log k) performance (worst case O(n log k)) for n calls to {@link
 * #offer} and a call to {@link #topK}, with O(k) memory. In comparison, quickselect has the same
 * asymptotics but requires O(n) memory, and a {@code PriorityQueue} implementation takes O(n log

        return new IllegalArgumentException(
            "Multiple entries with same key: " + key + "=" + value1 + " and " + key + "=" + value2);
      }
    }
  }

  /**
   * Returns an immutable map containing the same entries as {@code map}. The returned map iterates
   * over entries in the same order as the {@code entrySet} of the original map. If {@code map}