I asked already a few months ago how to count the elements of a Stream. My new approach is:
int count = stream.mapToInt(element -> 1).sum();
What is the most elegant solution in your opinion?
From Oracle's Documentation on Stream:
Reduction operations
A reduction operation (also called a fold) takes a sequence of input
elements and combines them into a single summary result by repeated
application of a combining operation, such as finding the sum or
maximum of a set of numbers, or accumulating elements into a list. The
streams classes have multiple forms of general reduction operations,
called reduce() and collect(), as well as multiple specialized
reduction forms such as sum(), max(), or count().
You were using one of the reduction operations from stream, there just happens to be others as well
Related
In this problem, I have a set of elements that are indexed from 1 to n. Each element actually corresponds to a graph node and I am trying to calculate random one-to-one matchings between the nodes. For the sake of simplicity, I neglect further details of the actual problem. I need to write a fast algorithm to randomly consume these elements (nodes) and do this operation multiple times in order to calculate different matchings. The purpose here is to create randomized inputs to another algorithm and each calculated matching at the end of this will be another input to that algorithm.
The most basic algorithm I can think of is to create copies of the elements in the form of an array, generate random integers, and use them as array indices to apply swap operations. This way each random copy can be created in O(n) but in practice, it uses a lot of copy and swap operations. Performance is very important and I am looking for faster ways (algorithms and data structures) of achieving this goal. It just needs to satisfy the two conditions:
It shall be able to consume a random element.
It shall be able to consume an element on the given index.
I tried to write as clear as possible. If you have any questions, feel free to ask and I am happy to clarify. Thanks in advance.
Note: Matching is an operation where you pair the vertices on a graph if there exists an edge between them.
Shuffle index array (for example, with Fisher-Yates shuffling)
ia = [3,1,4,2]
Walk through index array and "consume" set element with current index
for x in ia:
consume(Set[indexed by x])
So for this example you will get order Set[3], Set[1], Set[4], Set[2]
No element swaps, only array of integers is changed
What is the most effective way of finding a maximum value in a set of variables?
I have seen solutions, such as
private double findMax(double... vals) {
double max = Double.NEGATIVE_INFINITY;
for (double d : vals) {
if (d > max) max = d;
}
return max;
}
But, what would be the most effective algorithm for doing this?
You can't reduce the complexity below O(n) if the list is unsorted... but you can improve the constant factor by a lot. Use SIMD. For example, in SSE you would use the MAXSS instruction to perform 4-ish compare+select operations in a single cycle. Unroll the loop a bit to reduce the cost of loop control logic. And then outside the loop, find the max out of the four values trapped in your SSE register.
This gives a benefit for any size list... also using multithreading makes sense for really large lists.
Assuming the list does not have elements in any particular order, the algorithm you mentioned in your question is optimal. It must look at every element once, thus it takes time directly proportional to the to the size of the list, O(n).
There is no algorithm for finding the maximum that has a lower upper bound than O(n).
Proof: Suppose for a contradiction that there is an algorithm that finds the maximum of a list in less than O(n) time. Then there must be at least one element that it does not examine. If the algorithm selects this element as the maximum, an adversary may choose a value for the element such that it is smaller than one of the examined elements. If the algorithm selects any other element as the maximum, an adversary may choose a value for the element such that it is larger than the other elements. In either case, the algorithm will fail to find the maximum.
EDIT: This was my attempt answer, but please look at the coments where #BenVoigt proposes a better way to optimize the expression
You need to traverse the whole list at least once
so it'd be a matter of finding a more efficient expression for if (d>max) max=d, if any.
Assuming we need the general case where the list is unsorted (if we keep it sorted we'd just pick the last item as #IgnacioVazquez points in the comments), and researching a little about branch prediction (Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array? , see 4th answer) , looks like
if (d>max) max=d;
can be more efficiently rewritten as
max=d>max?d:max;
The reason is, the first statement is normally translated into a branch (though it's totally compiler and language dependent, but at least in C and C++, and even in a VM-based language like Java happens) while the second one is translated into a conditional move.
Modern processors have a big penalty in branches if the prediction goes wrong (the execution pipelines have to be reset), while a conditional move is an atomic operation that doesn't affect the pipelines.
The random nature of the elements in the list (one can be greater or lesser than the current maximum with equal probability) will cause many branch predictions to go wrong.
Please refer to the linked question for a nice discussion of all this, together with benchmarks.
I remember learning a data structure that stored a set of integers as ranges in a tree, but it's been 10 years and I can't remember the name of the data structure, and I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. If it helps, it's a functional data structure that was taught at CMU, I believe in 15-212 (Principles of Programming) in 2002.
Basically, I want to store a set of integers, most of which are consecutive. I want to be able to query for set membership efficiently, add a range of integers efficiently, and remove a range of integers efficiently. In particular, I don't care to preserve what the original ranges are. It's better if adjacent ranges are coalesced into a single larger range.
A naive implementation would be to simply use a generic set data structure such as a HashSet or TreeSet, and add all integers in a range when adding a range, or remove all integers in a range when removing a range. But of course, that would waste a lot of memory in addition to making add and remove slow.
I'm thinking of a purely functional data structure, but for my current use I don't need it to be. IIRC, lookup, insertion, and deletion were all O(log N), where N was the number of ranges in the set.
So, can you tell me the name of the data structure I'm trying to remember, or a suitable alternative?
I found the old homework and the data structure I had in mind were Discrete Interval Encoding Trees or diets for short. They are described in detail in Diets for Fat Sets, Martin Erwig. Journal of Functional Programming, Vol. 8, No. 6, 627-632, 1998. It is basically a tree of intervals with the invariant that all of the intervals are non-overlapping and non-touching. There is a Haskell implementation in Hackage. I was hoping there would be an existing implementation for Scala, but I'm not seeing any.
The homework also included another data structure they called a Recursive Interval-Occluding Tree (RIOT), which rather than keeping only an interval at each node keeps an interval and another (possibly empty) RIOT of things removed from the interval. The assignment included benchmarks showing it did better than diets for random insertions and deletions. AFAICT it is simply something the TAs made up and never published as it no longer seems to exist anywhere on the Internets, at least not under that name.
You probably are looking for segment trees. This might be helpful: http://www.topcoder.com/tc?d1=tutorials&d2=lowestCommonAncestor&module=Static
You can also use binary search trees for the same, for which each node will have two data fields: min_val and max_val.
During insertion algorithm, you just need to call another merging operation to check if the left-child,parent,right-child create a sequence, so as to club them into a single node. This will take O(log n) time.
Other operations like deletion and look-up will take O(log n) time as usual, but special measures need to be taken while deletion.
I'm writing a program for a competition and I need to be faster than all the other competitors. For this I need a little algorithm help; ideally I'd be using the fastest algorithm.
For this problem I am given 2 things. The first is a list of tuples, each of which contains exactly two elements (strings), each of which represents an item. The second is an integer, which indicates how many unique items there are in total. For example:
# of items = 3
[("ball","chair"),("ball","box"),("box","chair"),("chair","box")]
The same tuples can be repeated/ they are not necessarily unique.) My program is supposed to figure out the maximum number of tuples that can "agree" when the items are sorted into two groups. This means that if all the items are broken into two ideal groups, group 1 and group 2, what are the maximum number of tuples that can have their first item in group 1 and their second item in group 2.
For example, the answer to my earlier example would be 2, with "ball" in group 1 and "chair" and "box" in group 2, satisfying the first two tuples. I do not necessarily need know what items go in which group, I just need to know what the maximum number of satisfied tuples could be.
At the moment I'm trying a recursive approach, but its running on (n^2), far too inefficient in my opinion. Does anyone have a method that could produce a faster algorithm?
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!
Speed up approaches for your task:
1. Use integers
Convert the strings to integers (store the strings in an array and use the position for the tupples.
String[] words = {"ball", "chair", "box"};
In tuppls ball now has number 0 (pos 0 in array) , chair 1, box 2.
comparing ints is faster than Strings.
2. Avoid recursion
Recursion is slow, due the recursion overhead.
For example look at binarys search algorithm in a recursive implementatiion, then look how java implements binSearch() (with a while loop and iteration)
Recursion is helpfull if problems are so complex that a non recursive implementation is to complex for a human brain.
An iterataion is faster, but not in the case when you mimick recursive calls by implementing your own stack.
However you can start implementing using a recursiove algorithm, once it works and it is a suited algo, then try to convert to a non recursive implementation
3. if possible avoid objects
if you want the fastest, the now it becomes ugly!
A tuppel array can either be stored in as array of class Point(x,y) or probably faster,
as array of int:
Example:
(1,2), (2,3), (3,4) can be stored as array: (1,2,2,3,3,4)
This needs much less memory because an object needs at least 12 bytes (in java).
Less memory becomes faster, when the array are really big, then your structure will hopefully fits in the processor cache, while the objects array does not.
4. Programming language
In C it will be faster than in Java.
Maximum cut is a special case of your problem, so I doubt you have a quadratic algorithm for it. (Maximum cut is NP-complete and it corresponds to the case where every tuple (A,B) also appears in reverse as (B,A) the same number of times.)
The best strategy for you to try here is "branch and bound." It's a variant of the straightforward recursive search you've probably already coded up. You keep track of the value of the best solution you've found so far. In each recursive call, you check whether it's even possible to beat the best known solution with the choices you've fixed so far.
One thing that may help (or may hurt) is to "probe": for each as-yet-unfixed item, see if putting that item on one of the two sides leads only to suboptimal solutions; if so, you know that item needs to be on the other side.
Another useful trick is to recurse on items that appear frequently both as the first element and as the second element of your tuples.
You should pay particular attention to the "bound" step --- finding an upper bound on the best possible solution given the choices you've fixed.
This problem is a little similar to that solved by reservoir sampling, but not the same. I think its also a rather interesting problem.
I have a large dataset (typically hundreds of millions of elements), and I want to estimate the number of unique elements in this dataset. There may be anywhere from a few, to millions of unique elements in a typical dataset.
Of course the obvious solution is to maintain a running hashset of the elements you encounter, and count them at the end, this would yield an exact result, but would require me to carry a potentially large amount of state with me as I scan through the dataset (ie. all unique elements encountered so far).
Unfortunately in my situation this would require more RAM than is available to me (nothing that the dataset may be far larger than available RAM).
I'm wondering if there would be a statistical approach to this that would allow me to do a single pass through the dataset and come up with an estimated unique element count at the end, while maintaining a relatively small amount of state while I scan the dataset.
The input to the algorithm would be the dataset (an Iterator in Java parlance), and it would return an estimated unique object count (probably a floating point number). It is assumed that these objects can be hashed (ie. you can put them in a HashSet if you want to). Typically they will be strings, or numbers.
You could use a Bloom Filter for a reasonable lower bound. You just do a pass over the data, counting and inserting items which were definitely not already in the set.
This problem is well-addressed in the literature; a good review of various approaches is http://www.edbt.org/Proceedings/2008-Nantes/papers/p618-Metwally.pdf. The simplest approach (and most compact for very high accuracy requirements) is called Linear Counting. You hash elements to positions in a bitvector just like you would a Bloom filter (except only one hash function is required), but at the end you estimate the number of distinct elements by the formula D = -total_bits * ln(unset_bits/total_bits). Details are in the paper.
If you have a hash function that you trust, then you could maintain a hashset just like you would for the exact solution, but throw out any item whose hash value is outside of some small range. E.g., use a 32-bit hash, but only keep items where the first two bits of the hash are 0. Then multiply by the appropriate factor at the end to approximate the total number of unique elements.
Nobody has mentioned approximate algorithm designed specifically for this problem, Hyperloglog.