I have a fixed list of strings of the same length. I want to store them in a hash table, that would consume the least memory without deteriorating the expected look up time.
Theoretically, it is possible to find one to one mapping between the strings and integers, so that the look up time would be constant.
The question is how to find the "best" hash function that would get me close to this goal? A possible way to do so is to just try many hash functions and choose the one with the least number of collisions. Is there an "analytic" approach?
Related
I am looking for suggestions in improving the query time access for unordered maps. My code essentially just consists of 2 steps. In the first step, I populate the unordered map. After the first step, no more entries are ever added to the map. In the second step, the unordered map is only queried. Since the map is essentially unchanging, is there something that can be done to speed up the query time?
For instance, does stl provide any function that can adjust the internal allocations in the map to improve query time access? In other words, it is possible that more than one key was mapped to the same bucket in the unordered map. If more memory was allocated to the map, then chances of such a collision occurring can reduce. In that sense, I am curious as to whether there is anything that can be done knowing the fact that the unordered map will remain unchanged.
If measurements show this is important for you, then I'd suggest taking measurements for other hash table implementations outside the Standard Library, e.g. google's. Using closed hashing aka open addressing may well work better for you, especially if your hash table entries are small enough to store directly in the hash table buckets.
More generally, Marshall suggests finding a good hash function. Be careful though - sometimes a generally "bad" hash function performs better than a "good" one, if it works in nicely with some of the properties of your keys. For example, if you tend to have incrementing number, perhaps with a few gaps, then an identity (aka trivial) hash function that just returns the key can select hash buckets with far less collisions than a crytographic hash that pseudo-randomly (but repeatably) scatters keys with as little as a single bit of difference in uncorrelated buckets. Identity hashing can also help if you're looking up several nearby key values, as their buckets are probably nearby too and you'll get better cache utilisation. But, you've told us nothing about your keys, values, number of entries etc. - so I'll leave the rest with you.
You have two knobs that you can twist: The the hash function and number of buckets in the map. One is fixed at compile-time (the hash function), and the other you can modify (somewhat) at run-time.
A good hash function will give you very few collisions (non-equal values that have the same hash value). If you have many collisions, then there's not really much you can do to improve your lookup times. Worst case (all inputs hash to the same value) gives you O(N) lookup times. So that's where you want to focus your effort.
Once you have a good hash function, then you can play games with the number of buckets (via rehash) which can reduce collisions further.
I have to implement a Trie of codes of a given fixed-length. Each code is a sequence of integers and considering that some patterns are usual, I decided to implement a Trie in order to store all the codes.
I also need to iterate throught the codes given they lexicograph order and I'm expecting to work with millions (maybe billions) of codes.
This is why I considered implementing this particular Trie as a dictionary where each key is the index of a given prefix.
Let's say key 0 has a list of his prefix children and for each one i save the corresponding entry on the dictionary...
Example: If my first insertion is the code 231, then the dictionary would look like:
[0]->{(2,1)}
[1]->{(3,2)}
[2]->{(1,3)}
This way, if my second insertion would be 243, the dictionary would be updated this way:
[0]->{(2,1)}
[1]->{(3,2),(4,3)} *Here each list is sorted using a flat_map
[2]->{(1,endMark)}
[3]->{(3,endMark)}
My problem is that I have been using a vector for this purpuse and because having all the dictionary in contiguos memory allows me to have a better performance while iterating over it.
Now, when I need to work with BIG instances of my problem, due to resizing the vector I cannot work with millions of codes (memory consuption could be as much as 200GB).
Now I have tried google's sparse hash insted of the vector and my question is, do you have any suggestion? any other alternative in mind? Is there any other way to work with integers as keys to improve performance?
I know I wont have any collision because each key would be different from the rest.
Best regards,
Quentin
I am dealing with hundreds of thousands of files,
I have to process those files 1-by-1,
In doing so, I need to remember the files that are already processed.
All I can think of is strong the file path of each file in a lo----ong array, and then checking it every time for duplication.
But, I think that there should be some better way,
Is it possible for me to generate a KEY (which is a number) or something, that just remembers all the files that have been processed?
You could use some kind of hash function (MD5, SHA1).
Pseudocode:
for each F in filelist
hash = md5(F name)
if not hash in storage
process file F
store hash in storage to remember
see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1321 for a C implementation of MD5
There are probabilistic methods that give approximate results, but if you want to know for sure whether a string is one you've seen before or not, you must store all the strings you've seen so far, or equivalent information. It's a pigeonhole principle argument. Of course you can get by without doing a linear search of the strings you've seen so far using all sorts of different methods like hash tables, binary trees, etc.
If I understand your question correctly, you want to create a SINGLE key that should take on a specific value, and from that value you should be able to deduce which files have been processed already? I don't know if you are going to be able to do that, simply from the point that your space is quite big and generating unique key presentations in such a huge space requires a lot of memory.
As mentioned, what you can do is simply to store each path URL in a HashSet. Putting a hundred thousand entries into the Set is not that bad, and lookup time is amortized constant time O(1), so it will be quite fast.
Bloom filter can solve your problem.
Idea of bloom filter is simple. It begins with having an empty array of some length, with all its members having zero value. We shall have K number of hash functions.
When ever we need to insert an item to the bloom filter, we has the item with all K hash functions. These hash functions would get K indexes on the bloom filter. For these indexes, we need to change the member value as 1.
To check if an item exists in the bloom filter, simply hash it with all of the K hashes and check the corresponding array indexes. If all of them are 1's , the item is present in the bloom filter.
Kindly note that bloom filter can provide false positive results. But this would never give false negative results. You need to tweak the bloom filter algorithm to address these false positive case.
What you need, IMHO, is a some sort of tree or hash based set implementation. It is basically a data structure that supports very fast add, remove and query operations and keeps only one instance of each elements (i.e. no duplicates). A few hundred thousand strings (assuming they are themselves not hundreds of thousands characters long) should not be problem for such a data structure.
You programming language of choice probably already has one, so you don't need to write one yourself. C++ has std::set. Java has the Set implementations TreeSet and HashSet. Python has a Set. They all allow you to add elements and check for the presence of an element very fast (O(1) for hashtable based sets, O(log(n)) for tree based sets). Other than those, there are lots of free implementations of sets as well as general purpose binary search trees and hashtables that you can use.
I have x (millions) positive integers, where their values can be as big as allowed (+2,147,483,647). Assuming they are unique, what is the best way to store them for a lookup intensive program.
So far i thought of using a binary AVL tree or a hash table, where the integer is the key to the mapped data (a name). However am not to sure whether i can implement such large keys and in such large quantity with a hash table (wouldn't that create a >0.8 load factor in addition to be prone for collisions?)
Could i get some advise on which data structure might be suitable for my situation
The choice of structure depends heavily on how much memory you have available. I'm assuming based on the description that you need lookup but not to loop over them, find nearest, or other similar operations.
Best is probably a bucketed hash table. By placing hash collisions into buckets and keeping separate arrays in the bucket for keys and values, you can both reduce the size of the table proper and take advantage of CPU cache speedup when searching a bucket. Linear search within a bucket may even end up faster than binary search!
AVL trees are nice for data sets that are read-intensive but not read-only AND require ordered enumeration, find nearest and similar operations, but they're an annoyingly amount of work to implement correctly. You may get better performance with a B-tree because of CPU cache behavior, though, especially a cache-oblivious B-tree algorithm.
Have you looked into B-trees? The efficiency runs between log_m(n) and log_(m/2)(n) so if you choose m to be around 8-10 or so you should be able to keep your search depth to below 10.
Bit Vector , with the index set if the number is present. You can tweak it to have the number of occurrences of each number. There is a nice column about bit vectors in Bentley's Programming Pearls.
If memory isn't an issue a map is probably your best bet. Maps are O(1) meaning that as you scale up the number of items to be looked up the time is takes to find a value is the same.
A map where the key is the int, and the value is the name.
Do try hash tables first. There are some variants that can tolerate being very dense without significant slowdown (like Brent's variation).
If you only need to store the 32-bit integers and not any associated record, use a set and not a map, like hash_set in most C++ libraries. It would use only 4-bytes records plus some constant overhead and a little slack to avoid being 100%. In the worst case, to handle 'millions' of numbers you'd need a few tens of megabytes. Big, but nothing unmanageable.
If you need it to be much tighter, just store them sorted in a plain array and use binary search to fetch them. It will be O(log n) instead of O(1), but for 'millions' of records it's still just twentysomething steps to get any one of them. In C you have bsearch(), which is as fast as it can get.
edit: just saw in your question you talk about some 'mapped data (a name)'. are those names unique? do they also have to be in memory? if yes, they would definitely dominate the memory requirements. Even so, if the names are the typical english words, most would be 10 bytes or less, keeping the total size in the 'tens of megabytes'; maybe up to a hundred megs, still very manageable.
Is there a way to test the quality of a hash function? I want to have a good spread when used in the hash table, and it would be great if this is verifyable in a unit test.
EDIT: For clarification, my problem was that I have used long values in Java in such a way that the first 32 bit encoded an ID and the second 32 bit encoded another ID. Unfortunately Java's hash of long values just XORs the first 32 bit with the second 32 bits, which in my case led to very poor performance when used in a HashMap. So I need a different hash, and would like to have a Unit Test so that this problem cannot creep in any more.
You have to test your hash function using data drawn from the same (or similar) distribution that you expect it to work on. When looking at hash functions on 64-bit longs, the default Java hash function is excellent if the input values are drawn uniformly from all possible long values.
However, you've mentioned that your application uses the long to store essentially two independent 32-bit values. Try to generate a sample of values similar to the ones you expect to actually use, and then test with that.
For the test itself, take your sample input values, hash each one and put the results into a set. Count the size of the resulting set and compare it to the size of the input set, and this will tell you the number of collisions your hash function is generating.
For your particular application, instead of simply XORing them together, try combining the 32-bit values in ways a typical good hash function would combine two indepenet ints. I.e. multiply by a prime, and add.
First I think you have to define what you mean by a good spread to yourself. Do you mean a good spread for all possible input, or just a good spread for likely input?
For example, if you're hashing strings that represent proper full (first+last) names, you're not going to likely care about how things with the numerical ASCII characters hash.
As for testing, your best bet is to probably get a huge or random input set of data you expect, and push it through the hash function and see how the spread ends up. There's not likely going to be a magic program that can say "Yes, this is a good hash function for your use case.". However, if you can programatically generate the input data, you should easily be able to create a unit test that generates a significant amount of it and then verify that the spread is within your definition of good.
Edit: In your case with a 64 bit long, is there even really a reason to use a hash map? Why not just use a balanced tree directly, and use the long as the key directly rather than rehashing it? You pay a little penalty in overall node size (2x the size for the key value), but may end up saving it in performance.
If your using a chaining hash table, what you really care about is the number of collisions. This would be trivial to implement as a simple counter on your hash table. Every time an item is inserted and the table has to chain, increment a chain counter. A better hashing algorithm will result in a lower number of collisions. A good general purpose table hashing function to check out is: djb2
Based on your clarification:
I have used long values in Java in such a way that the first 32 bit encoded an ID and the second 32 bit encoded another ID. Unfortunately Java's hash of long values just XORs the first 32 bit with the second 32 bits, which in my case led to very poor performance when used in a HashMap.
it appears you have some unhappy "resonances" between the way you assign the two ID values and the sizes of your HashMap instances.
Are you explicitly sizing your maps, or using the defaults? A QAD check seems to indicate that a HashMap<Long,String> starts with a 16-bucket structure and doubles on overflow. That would mean that only the low-order bits of the ID values are actually participating in the hash bucket selection. You could try using one of the constructors that takes an initial-size parameter and create your maps with a prime initial size.
Alternately, Dave L's suggestion of defining your own hashing of long keys would allow you to avoid the low-bit-dependency problem.
Another way to look at this is that you're using a primitive type (long) as a way to avoid defining a real class. I'd suggest looking at the benefits you could achieve by defining the business classes and then implementing hash-coding, equality, and other methods as appropriate on your own classes to manage this issue.