I was recently asked a coding question on the below problem.
I have some solution to this problem but I am not very sure if those are most efficient.
Problem:
Write a program to track set of text ranges. Start point and end point will be string.
Text range example : [AbA-Ef]
Aa would fall before this range
AB would fall inside this range
etc.
String comparison would be like 'A' < 'a' < 'B' < 'b' ... 'Z' < 'z'
We need to support following operations on this range
Add range - this should merge the ranges if applicable
Delete range - this deletes range from tracked ranges and recompute the ranges
Query range - Given a character, function should return whether it is part of any of tracked ranges or not.
Note that tracked ranges can be dis-continuous.
My solutions:
I came up with two approaches.
Store ranges as doubly linked list or
Store ranges as some sort of balanced tree with leaf node having actual data and they are inter-connected as linked list.
Do you think that this solution are good enough or you can think of any better way of doing this so that those three API gives your best performance ?
You are probably looking for an interval tree.
Use the data structure with your custom comparator to indicate "What's on range", and you will be able to do the required operations efficiently.
Note, an interval tree is actually an efficient way to implement your 2nd idea (Store ranges as a some sort of balanced tree)
I'm not clear on what the "delete range" operation is supposed to do. Does it;
Delete a previously inserted range, and recompute the merge of the remaining ranges?
Stop tracking the deleted range, regardless of how many times parts of it have been added.
That doesn't make a huge difference algorithmically; it's just bookkeeping. But it's important to clarify. Also, are the ranges closed or half-open? (Another detail which doesn't affect the algorithm but does affect the implementation).
The basic approach to this problem is to merge the tracked set into a sorted list of disjoint (non-overlapping) ranges; either as a vector or a binary search tree, or basically any structure which supports O(log n) searching.
One approach is to put both endpoints of every disjoint range into the datastructure. To find out if a target value is in a range, find the index of the smallest endpoint greater than the target. If the index is odd the target is in some range; even means it's outside.
Alternatively, index all the disjoint ranges by their start points; find the target by searching for the largest start-point not greater than the target, and then compare the target with the associated end-point.
I usually use the first approach with sorted vectors, which are plausible if (a) space utilization is important and (b) insert and merge are relatively rare. With binary search trees, I go for the second approach. But they differ only in details and constants.
Merging and deleting are not difficult, but there are an annoying number of cases. You start by finding the ranges corresponding to the endpoints of the range to be inserted/deleted (using the standard find operation), remove all the ranges in between the two, and fiddle with the endpoints to correct the partially overlapping ranges. While the find operation is always O(log n), the tree/vector manipulation is o(n) (if the inserted/deleted range is large, anyway).
Most languages, including Java and C++, have a some sort of ordered map or ordered set in which you can both look up a value and find the next value after or the first value before a value. You could use this as a building block - If it contains a set of disjoint ranges then it will have a least element of a range followed by a greatest element of a range followed by the least element of a range followed by the greatest element of a range and so on. When you add a range you can check to see if you have preserved this property. If not, you need to merge ranges. Similarly, you want to preserve this when you delete. Then you can query by just looking to see if there is a least element just before your query point and a greatest element just after.
If you want to create your own datastructure from scratch, I would think about some sort of radix trie structure, because this avoids doing lots of repeated string comparisons.
I think you would go for B+ tree it's the same which you have mentioned as your second approach.
Here are some properties of B+ tree:
All data is stored leaf nodes.
Every leaf is at the same level.
All leaf nodes have links to other leaf nodes.
Here are few applications B+ tree:
It reduces the number of I/O operations required to find an element in the tree.
Often used in the implementation of database indexes.
The primary value of a B+ tree is in storing data for efficient retrieval in a block-oriented storage context — in particular, file systems.
NTFS uses B+ trees for directory indexing.
Basically it helps for range queries look ups, minimizes tree traversing.
Related
Summary
I have a problem that seems as if it is likely to have many good known solutions with different performance characteristics. Assuming this is the case, a great answer could include code (or pseudo code), but ideally, it would reference the literature and give them name of this problem so I can explore the problem in greater detail and understand the space of solutions.
The problem
I have an initially empty array that can hold identifiers. Any identifiers in the array are unique (they're only ever in the array once).
var identifiers: [Identifier] = []
Over time a process will insert identifiers in to the array. It won't just append them to the end. They can be inserted anywhere in the array.
Identifiers will never be removed from the array – only inserted.
Insertion needs to be quick, so probably the structure won't literally be an array, but something supporting better than linear time insertion (such as a BTree).
After some identifiers have been added to identifiers, I want to be able to query the current position of any given identifier. So I need a function to look this up.
A linear time solution to this is simply to scan through identifiers from the start until an identifier is found, and the answer is the index that was reached.
func find(identifier: Identifier) -> Int? {
for index in identifiers.indices {
if identifiers[index] == identifier {
return index
}
}
return nil
}
But this linear scaling with the size of the array is problematic if the array is very large (perhaps 100s of millions of elements).
A hash map doesn't work
We can't put the positions of the identifiers in to a hash map. This doesn't work because identifier positions are not fixed after insertion in to the array. If other identifiers are inserted before them, they will drift to higher indexes.
However, a possible acceleration for the linear time algorithm would be to cache the initial insertions position of an identifier and begin a linear scan from there. Because identifiers are only inserted, it must be at that index, or an index after it (or not in identifiers at all). Once the identifier is found, the cache can be updated.
Another option could be to update the hash-map after any insertions to correct any positions. However this would slow down insert so that it is potentially a linear time operation (as previously mentioned, identifiers is probably not a literally array but some other structure allowing better than linear time insertion).
Summary
There's a linear time solution, and there's an optimisation using a hash map (at the cost of roughly doubling storage). Is there a much better solution for looking up the current index of an identifier, perhaps in log time?
You can use an order-statistic tree for this, based on a red-black tree or other self-balancing binary tree. Essentially, each node will have an extra integer field, storing the number of descendants it currently has. (Insertion and deletion operations, and their resultant rotations, will only result in updating O(log n) nodes so this can be done efficiently). To query the position of an identifier, you examine the descendant count of its left subtree and the descendant counts of the siblings of each of its right-side ancestors.
Note that while the classic use of an order-statistic tree is for a sorted list, nothing in the logic requires this; "node A is before node B" is all you need for insertion, tree rotations don't require re-evaluating the ordering, and having a pointer to the node (and having nodes store parent pointers) is all you need to query the index. All operations are in O(log n).
Relaxed Radix Balanced Trees (RRB-trees) are a generalization of immutable vectors (used in Clojure and Scala) that have 'effectively constant' indexing and update times. RRB-trees maintain efficient indexing and update but also allow efficient concatenation (log n).
The authors present the data structure in a way that I find hard to follow. I am not quite sure what the invariant is that each node maintains.
In section 2.5, they describe their algorithm. I think they are ensuring that indexing into the node will only ever require e extra steps of linear search after radix searching. I do not understand how they derived their formula for the extra steps, and I think perhaps I'm not sure what each of the variables mean (in particular "a total of p sub-tree branches").
What's how does the RRB-tree concatenation algorithm work?
They do describe an invariant in section 2.4 "However, as mentioned earlier
B-Trees nodes do not facilitate radix searching. Instead we chose
the initial invariant of allowing the node sizes to range between m
and m - 1. This defines a family of balanced trees starting with
well known 2-3 trees, 3-4 trees and (for m=32) 31-32 trees. This
invariant ensures balancing and achieves radix branch search in the
majority of cases. Occasionally a few step linear search is needed
after the radix search to find the correct branch.
The extra steps required increase at the higher levels."
Looking at their formula, it looks like they have worked out the maximum and minimum possible number of values stored in a subtree. The difference between the two is the maximum possible difference between the maximum and minimum number of values underneath a point. If you divide this by the number of values underneath a slot, you have the maximum number of slots you could be off by when you work out which slot to look at to see if it contains the index you are searching for.
#mcdowella is correct that's what they say about relaxed nodes. But if you're splitting and joining nodes, a range from m to m-1 means you will sometimes have to adjust up to m-1 (m-2?) nodes in order to add or remove a single element from a node. This seems horribly inefficient. I think they meant between m and (2 m) - 1 because this allows nodes to be split into 2 when they get too big, or 2 nodes joined into one when they are too small without ever needing to change a third node. So it's a typo that the "2" is missing in "2 m" in the paper. Jean Niklas L’orange's masters thesis backs me up on this.
Furthermore, all strict nodes have the same length which must be a power of 2. The reason for this is an optimization in Rich Hickey's Clojure PersistentVector. Well, I think the important thing is to pack all strict nodes left (more on this later) so you don't have to guess which branch of the tree to descend. But being able to bit-shift and bit-mask instead of divide is a nice bonus. I didn't time the get() operation on a relaxed Scala Vector, but the relaxed Paguro vector is about 10x slower than the strict one. So it makes every effort to be as strict as possible, even producing 2 strict levels if you repeatedly insert at 0.
Their tree also has an even height - all leaf nodes are equal distance from the root. I think it would still work if relaxed trees had to be within, say, one level of one-another, though not sure what that would buy you.
Relaxed nodes can have strict children, but not vice-versa.
Strict nodes must be filled from the left (low-index) without gaps. Any non-full Strict nodes must be on the right-hand (high-index) edge of the tree. All Strict leaf nodes can always be full if you do appends in a focus or tail (more on that below).
You can see most of the invariants by searching for the debugValidate() methods in the Paguro implementation. That's not their paper, but it's mostly based on it. Actually, the "display" variables in the Scala implementation aren't mentioned in the paper either. If you're going to study this stuff, you probably want to start by taking a good look at the Clojure PersistentVector because the RRB Tree has one inside it. The two differences between that and the RRB Tree are 1. the RRB Tree allows "relaxed" nodes and 2. the RRB Tree may have a "focus" instead of a "tail." Both focus and tail are small buffers (maybe the same size as a strict leaf node), the difference being that the focus will probably be localized to whatever area of the vector was last inserted/appended to, while the tail is always at the end (PerSistentVector can only be appended to, never inserted into). These 2 differences are what allow O(log n) arbitrary inserts and removals, plus O(log n) split() and join() operations.
I am wondering if anyone knows of a data structure which would efficiently handle the following situation:
The data structure should store several, possibly overlapping, variable length ranges on some continuous timescale.
For example, you might add the ranges a:[0,3], b:[4,7], c:[0,9].
Insertion time does not need to be particularly efficient.
Retrievals would take a range as a parameter, and return all the ranges in the set that overlap with the range, for example:
Get(1,2) would return a and c. Get(6,7) would return b and c. Get(2,6) would return all three.
Retrievals need to be as efficient as possible.
One data structure you could use is a one-dimensional R-tree. These are designed to deal with ranges and to provide efficient retrieval. You will also learn about Allen's Operators; there are a dozen other relationships between time intervals than just 'overlaps'.
There are other questions on SO that impinge on this area, including:
Determine Whether Two Date Ranges Overlap
Data structure for non-overlapping ranges within a single dimension
You could go for a binary tree, that stores the ranges in a hierarchy. Starting from the root node, that represents an all-encompassing range divided it its middle, you test if your range you are trying to insert belong to the left subrange, right subrange, or both, and recursively carry on in the matching subnodes until you reach a certain depth, at which you save the actual range.
For lookup, you test your input range against the left and right subranges of the top node, and dive in the ones which overlap, repeating until you have reached actual ranges that you save.
This way, retrieval has a logarithmic complexity. You'd still need to manage duplicates in your retrieval, as some ranges are going to belong to several nodes.
Say I have a bunch of objects with dates and I regularly want to find all the objects that fall between two arbitrary dates. What sort of datastructure would be good for this?
A binary search tree sounds like what you're looking for.
You can use it to find all the objects in O(log(N) + K), where N is the total number of objects and K is the number of objects that are actually in that range. (provided that it's balanced). Insertion/removal is O(log(N)).
Most languages have a built-in implementation of this.
C++:
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/stl/set/
Java:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/TreeSet.html
You can find the lower bound of the range (in log(n)) and then iterate from there until you reach the upper bound.
Assuming you mean by date when you say sorted, an array will do it.
Do a binary search to find the index that's >= the start date. You can then either do another search to find the index that's <= the end date leaving you with an offset & count of items, or if you're going to process them anyway just iterate though the list until you exceed the end date.
It's hard to give a good answer without a little more detail.
What kind of performance do you need?
If linear is fine then I would just use a list of dates and iterate through the list collecting all dates that fall within the range. As Andrew Grant suggested.
Do you have duplicates in the list?
If you need to have repeated dates in your collection then most implementations of a binary tree would probably be out. Something like Java's TreeSet are set implementations and don't allow repeated elements.
What are the access characteristics? Lots of lookups with few updates, vice-versa, or fairly even?
Most datastructures have trade-offs between lookups and updates. If you're doing lots of updates then some datastructure that are optimized for lookups won't be so great.
So what are the access characteristics of the data structure, what kind of performance do you need, and what are structural characteristics that it must support (e.g. must allow repeated elements)?
If you need to make random-access modifications: a tree, as in v3's answer. Find the bottom of the range by lookup, then count upwards. Inserting or deleting a node is O(log N). stbuton makes a good point that if you want to allow duplicates (as seems plausible for datestamped events), then you don't want a tree-based set.
If you do not need to make random-access modifications: a sorted array (or vector or whatever). Find the location of the start of the range by binary chop, then count upwards. Inserting or deleting is O(N) in the middle. Duplicates are easy.
Algorithmic performance of lookups is the same in both cases, O(M + log N), where M is the size of the range. But the array uses less memory per entry, and might be faster to count through the range, because after the binary chop it's just forward sequential memory access rather than following pointers.
In both cases you can arrange for insertion at the end to be (amortised) O(1). For the tree, keep a record of the end element at the head, and you get an O(1) bound. For the array, grow it exponentially and you get amortised O(1). This is useful if the changes you make are always or almost-always "add a new event with the current time", since time is (you'd hope) a non-decreasing quantity. If you're using system time then of course you'd have to check, to avoid accidents when the clock resets backwards.
Alternative answer: an SQL table, and let the database optimise how it wants. And Google's BigTable structure is specifically designed to make queries fast, by ensuring that the result of any query is always a consecutive sequence from a pre-prepared index :-)
You want a structure that keeps your objects sorted by date, whenever you insert or remove a new one, and where finding the boundary for the segment of all objects later than or earlier than a given date is easy.
A heap seems the perfect candidate. In practical applications, heaps are simply represented by an array, where all the objects are stored in order. Seeing that sorted array as a heap is simply a way to make insertions of new objects and deletions happen in the right place, and in O(log(n)).
When you have to find all the objects between date A (excluded) and B (included), find the position of A (or the insert position, that is, the position of the earlier element later than A), and the position of B (or the insert position of B), and return all the objects between those positions (which is simply the section between those positions in the array/heap)
If I have a large set of continuous ranges ( e.g. [0..5], [10..20], [7..13],[-1..37] ) and can arrange those sets into any data-structure I like, what's the most efficient way to test which sets a particular test_number belongs to?
I've thought about storing the sets in a balanced binary tree based on the low number of a set ( and each node would have all the sets that have the same lowest number of their set). This would allow you to efficiently prune the number of sets based on whether the test_number you're testing against the sets is less than the lowest number of a set, and then prune that node and all the nodes to the right of that node ( which have a low number in their range which is greater than the test_number) . I think that would prune about 25% of the sets on average, but then I would need to linearly look at all the rest of the nodes in the binary tree to determine whether the test_number belonged in those sets. ( I could further optimize by sorting the lists of sets at any one node by the highest number in the set, which would allow me to do binary search within a specific list to determine which set, if any, contain the test_number. Unfortunately, most of the sets I'll be dealing with don't have overlapping set boundaries.)
I think that this problem has been solved in graphics processing since they've figured out ways to efficiently test which polygons in their entire model contribute to a specific pixel, but I don't know the terminology of that type of algorithm.
Your intuition about the relevance of your problem to graphics is correct. Consider building and querying a segment tree. It is particularly-well suited for the counting query you want. See also its description in Computational Geometry.
I think building a tree structure will speed things up considerably (provided you have enough sets and numbers to check that it's worth the initial cost). Instead of a binary tree it should be a ternary tree. Each node should have left, middle, and right nodes, where the left node contains a set that is strictly less than the node set, the right is strictly greater, and the middle has overlap.
Set1
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
Set2 Set3 Set4
It's quick and easy to tell if there's overlap in the sets, since you only have to compare the min and max values to order them. In the simple case above, Set2[max] < Set1[min], Set4[min] > Set1[max], and Set1 and Set3 have some overlap. This will speed up your search because if the number you're searching for is in Set1, it won't be in Set2 or Set4, and you don't have to check them.
I just want to point out that using a scheme like this only saves time over the naive implementation of checking every set if you have more numbers to check than you have sets.
I think I would organise them in the same way Mediawiki indexes pages - as a bucket sort. I don't know that it's the most efficient algorithm out there, but it should be fast, and is pretty easy to implement (even I've managed it, and in SQL at that!!).
Basically, the algorithm for sorting is
For Each SetOfNumbers
For Each NumberInSet
Put SetOfNumbers into Bin(NumberInSet)
Then to query, you can just count the number of items in Bin(MyNumber)
This approach will work well when your SetOfNumbers rarely changes, although if they change regularly it's generally not too hard to keep the Bins updated either. It's chief disadvantage is that it trades space, and initial sorting time, for very fast queries.
Note that in the algorithm I've expanded the Ranges into SetsOfNumbers - enumerating every number in a given range.