Scala PriorityQueue on Array[Int] performance issue with complex comparison function (caching is needed) - performance

Question

The problem involves the Scala PriorityQueue[Array[Int]] performance on large data set. The following operations are needed: enqueue, dequeue, and filter. Currently, my implementation is as follows:
For every element of type Array[Int], there is a complex evaluation function: (I'm not sure how to write it in a more efficient way, because it excludes the position 0)
def eval_fun(a : Array[Int]) =
if(a.size < 2) 3
else {
var ret = 0
var i = 1
while(i < a.size) {
if((a(i) & 0x3) == 1) ret += 1
else if((a(i) & 0x3) == 3) ret += 3
i += 1
}
ret / a.size
}
The ordering with a comparison function is based on the evaluation function: (Reversed, descendent order)
val arr_ord = new Ordering[Array[Int]] {
def compare(a : Array[Int], b : Array[Int]) = eval_fun(b) compare eval_fun(a) }
The PriorityQueue is defined as:
val pq: scala.collection.mutable.PriorityQueue[Array[Int]] = PriorityQueue()
Question:
Is there a more elegant and efficient way to write such a evaluation function? I'm thinking of using fold, but fold cannot exclude the position 0.
Is there a data structure to generate a priorityqueue with unique elements? Applying filter operation after each enqueue operation is not efficient.
Is there a cache method to reduce the evaluation computation? Since when adding a new element to the queue, every element may need to be evaluated by eval_fun again, which is not necessary if evaluated value of every element can be cached. Also, I should mention that two distinct element may have the same evaluated value.
Is there a more efficient data structure without using generic type? Because if the size of elements reaches 10,000 and the size of size reaches 1,000, the performance is terribly slow.
Thanks you.

Answer 1

(1) If you want maximum performance here, I would stick to the while loop, even if it is not terribly elegant. Otherwise, if you use a view on Array, you can easily drop the first element before going into the fold:
a.view.drop(1).foldLeft(0)( (sum, a) => sum + ((a & 0x03) match {
case 0x01 => 1
case 0x03 => 3
case _ => 0
})) / a.size
(2) You can maintain two structures, the priority queue, and a set. Both combined give you a sorted-set... So you could use collection.immutable.SortedSet, but there is no mutable variant in the standard library. Do want equality based on the priority function, or the actual array contents? Because in the latter case, you won't get around comparing arrays element by element for each insertion, undoing the effect of caching the priority function value.
(3) Just put the calculated priority along with the array in the queue. I.e.
implicit val ord = Ordering.by[(Int, Array[Int]), Int](_._1)
val pq = new collection.mutable.PriorityQueue[(Int, Array[Int])]
pq += eval_fun(a) -> a

Answer 2

Well, you can use a tail recursive loop (generally these are more "idiomatic":
def eval(a: Array[Int]): Int =
if (a.size < 2) 3
else {
#annotation.tailrec
def loop(ret: Int = 0, i: Int = 1): Int =
if (i >= a.size) ret / a.size
else {
val mod3 = (a(i) & 0x3)
if (mod3 == 1) loop(ret + 1, i + 1)
else if (mod3 == 3) loop(ret + 3, i + 1)
else loop(ret, i + 1)
}
loop()
}
Then you can use that to initialise a cached priority value:
case class PriorityArray(a: Array[Int]) {
lazy val priority = if (a.size < 2) 3 else {
#annotation.tailrec
def loop(ret: Int = 0, i: Int = 1): Int =
if (i >= a.size) ret / a.size
else {
val mod3 = (a(i) & 0x3)
if (mod3 == 2) loop(ret, i + 1)
else loop(ret + mod3, i + 1)
}
loop()
}
}
You may note also that I removed a redundant & op and have only the single conditional (for when it equals 2, rather than two checks for 1 && 3) – these should have some minimal effect.
There is not a huge difference from 0__'s proposal that just came though.

Answer 3

My answers:
If evaluation is critical, keep it as it is. You might get better performance with recursion (not sure why, but it happens), but you'll certainly get worse performance with pretty much any other approach.
No, there isn't, but you can come pretty close to it just modifying the dequeue operation:
def distinctDequeue[T](q: PriorityQueue[T]): T = {
val result = q.dequeue
while (q.head == result) q.dequeue
result
}
Otherwise, you'd have to keep a second data structure just to keep track of whether an element has been added or not. Either way, that equals sign is pretty heavy, but I have a suggestion to make it faster in the next item.
Note, however, that this requires that ties on the the cost function get solved in some other way.
Like 0__ suggested, put the cost on the priority queue. But you can also keep a cache on the function if that would be helpful. I'd try something like this:
val evalMap = scala.collection.mutable.HashMapWrappedArray[Int], Int
def eval_fun(a : Array[Int]) =
if(a.size < 2) 3
else evalMap.getOrElseUpdate(a, {
var ret = 0
var i = 1
while(i < a.size) {
if((a(i) & 0x3) == 1) ret += 1
else if((a(i) & 0x3) == 3) ret += 3
i += 1
}
ret / a.size
})
import scala.math.Ordering.Implicits._
val pq = new collection.mutable.PriorityQueue[(Int, WrappedArray[Int])]
pq += eval_fun(a) -> (a : WrappedArray[Int])
Note that I did not create a special Ordering -- I'm using the standard Ordering so that the WrappedArray will break the ties. There's little cost to wrap the Array, and you get it back with .array, but, on the other hand, you'll get the following:
Ties will be broken by comparing the array themselves. If there aren't many ties in the cost, this should be good enough. If there are, add something else to the tuple to help break ties without comparing the arrays.
That means all equal elements will be kept together, which will enable you to dequeue all of them at the same time, giving the impression of having kept only one.
And that equals will actually work, because WrappedArray compare like Scala sequences do.
I don't understand what you mean by that fourth point.