I have a stream of events flowing through my servers. It is not feasible for me to store all of them, but I would like to periodically be able to process some of them in aggregate. So, I want to keep a subset of the stream that is a random sampling of everything I've seen, but is capped to a max size.
So, for each new item, I need an algorithm to decide if I should add it to the stored set, or if I should discard it. If I add it, and I'm already at my limit, I need an algorithm to evict one of the old items.
Obviously, this is easy as long as I'm below my limit (just save everything). But how can I maintain a good random sampling without being biased towards old items or new items once I'm past that limit?
Thanks,
This is a common interview question.
One easy way to do it is to save the nth element with probability k/n (or 1, whichever is lesser). If you need to remove an element to save the new sample, evict a random element.
This gives you a uniformly random subset of the n elements. If you don't know n, you can estimate it and get an approximately uniform subset.
This is called random sampling. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_sampling
array R[k]; // result
integer i, j;
// fill the reservoir array
for each i in 1 to k do
R[i] := S[i]
done;
// replace elements with gradually decreasing probability
for each i in k+1 to length(S) do
j := random(1, i); // important: inclusive range
if j <= k then
R[j] := S[i]
fi
done
A decent explanation/proof: http://propersubset.com/2010/04/choosing-random-elements.html
While this paper isn't precisely what you're looking for, it may be a good starting point in your search.
store samples in a first in first out (FIFO) queue.
set a sampling rate of so many events between samples, or randomize this a bit - depending on your patterns of events.
save every nth event, or whenever your rate tells you to, then stick it in to the end of the queue.
pop one off the top if the size is too big.
This is assuming you dont know the total number of events that will be received and that you don't need a minimum number of elements in the subset.
arr = arr[MAX_SIZE] //Create a new array that will store the events. Assuming first index 1.
counter = 1 //Initialize a counter.
while(receiving event){
random = //Generate a random number between 1 and counter
if( counter == random ){
if( counter <= MAX_SIZE ){
arr[counter] = event
}
else{
tmpRandom = //Generate a random number between 1 and MAX_SIZE
arr[tmpRandom] = event
}
}
counter =+ 1
}
Assign a probability of recording each event and store the event in an indexable data structure. When the size of the structure gets to the threshold, remove a random element and add new elements. In Ruby, you could do this:
#storage = []
prob = 0.002
while ( message = getnextMessage) do
#storage.delete((rand() * #storage.length).floor) if #storage.length > MAX_LEN
#storage << message if (rand() < prob)
end
This addresses your max size AND your non-bias toward when the event occurred. You could also choose which element gets deleted by partitioning your stored elements into buckets and then removing an element from any bucket that has more than one element. The bucket method allows you to keep one from each hour, for example.
You should also know that sampling theory is Big Math. If you need more than a layman's idea about this you should consult a qualified mathematician in your area.
Related
I have a complex algorithm which calculates the result of a function f(x). In the real world f(x) is a continuous function. However due to rounding errors in the algorithm this is not the case in the computer program. The following diagram gives an example:
Furthermore I have a list of several thousands values Fi.
I am looking for all the x values which meet an Fi value i.e. f(xi)=Fi
I can solve this problem with by simply iterating through the x values like in the following pseudo code:
for i=0 to NumberOfChecks-1 do
begin
//calculate the function result with the algorithm
x=i*(xmax-xmin)/NumberOfChecks;
FunctionResult=CalculateFunctionResultWithAlgorithm(x);
//loop through the value list to see if the function result matches a value in the list
for j=0 to NumberOfValuesInTheList-1 do
begin
if Abs(FunctionResult-ListValues[j])<Epsilon then
begin
//mark that element j of the list matches
//and store the corresponding x value in the list
end
end
end
Of course it is necessary to use a high number of checks. Otherwise I will miss some x values. The higher the number of checks the more complete and accurate is the result. It is acceptable that the list is 90% or 95% complete.
The problem is that this brute force approach takes too much time. As I mentioned before the algorithm for f(x) is quite complex and with a high number of checks it takes too much time.
What would be a better solution for this problem?
Another way to do this is in two parts: generate all of the results, sort them, and then merge with the sorted list of existing results.
First step is to compute all of the results and save them along with the x value that generated them. That is:
results = list of <x, result>
for i = 0 to numberOfChecks
//calculate the function result with the algorithm
x=i*(xmax-xmin)/NumberOfChecks;
FunctionResult=CalculateFunctionResultWithAlgorithm(x);
results.Add(x, FunctionResult)
end for
Now, sort the results list by FunctionResult, and also sort the FunctionResult-ListValues array by result.
You now have two sorted lists that you can move through linearly:
i = 0, j = 0;
while (i < results.length && j < ListValues.length)
{
diff = ListValues[j] - results[i];
if (Abs(diff) < Episilon)
{
// mark this one with the x value
// and move to the next result
i = i + 1
}
else if (diff > 0)
{
// list value is much larger than result. Move to next result.
i = i + 1
}
else
{
// list value is much smaller than result. Move to next list value.
j = j + 1
}
}
Sort the list, producing an array SortedListValues that contains
the sorted ListValues and an array SortedListValueIndices that
contains the index in the original array of each entry in
SortedListValues. You only actually need the second of these and
you can create both of them with a single sort by sorting an array
of tuples of (value, index) using value as the sort key.
Iterate over your range in 0..NumberOfChecks-1 and compute the
value of the function at each step, and then use a binary chop
method to search for it in the sorted list.
Pseudo-code:
// sort as described above
SortedListValueIndices = sortIndices(ListValues);
for i=0 to NumberOfChecks-1 do
begin
//calculate the function result with the algorithm
x=i*(xmax-xmin)/NumberOfChecks;
FunctionResult=CalculateFunctionResultWithAlgorithm(x);
// do a binary chop to find the closest element in the list
highIndex = NumberOfValuesInTheList-1;
lowIndex = 0;
while true do
begin
if Abs(FunctionResult-ListValues[SortedListValueIndices[lowIndex]])<Epsilon then
begin
// find all elements in the range that match, breaking out
// of the loop as soon as one doesn't
for j=lowIndex to NumberOfValuesInTheList-1 do
begin
if Abs(FunctionResult-ListValues[SortedListValueIndices[j]])>=Epsilon then
break
//mark that element SortedListValueIndices[j] of the list matches
//and store the corresponding x value in the list
end
// break out of the binary chop loop
break
end
// break out of the loop once the indices match
if highIndex <= lowIndex then
break
// do the binary chop searching, adjusting the indices:
middleIndex = (lowIndex + 1 + highIndex) / 2;
if ListValues[SortedListValueIndices[middleIndex] < FunctionResult then
lowIndex = middleIndex;
else
begin
highIndex = middleIndex;
lowIndex = lowIndex + 1;
end
end
end
Possible complications:
The binary chop isn't taking the epsilon into account. Depending on
your data this may or may not be an issue. If it is acceptable that
the list is only 90 or 95% complete this might be ok. If not then
you'll need to widen the range to take it into account.
I've assumed you want to be able to match multiple x values for each FunctionResult. If that's not necessary you can simplify the code.
Naturally this depends very much on the data, and especially on the numeric distribution of Fi. Another problem is that the f(x) looks very jumpy, eliminating the concept of "assumption of nearby value".
But one could optimise the search.
Picture below.
Walking through F(x) at sufficient granularity, define a rough min
(red line) and max (green line), using suitable tolerance (the "air"
or "gap" in between). The area between min and max is "AREA".
See where each Fi-value hits AREA, do a stacked marking ("MARKING") at X-axis accordingly (can be multiple segments of X).
Where lots of MARKINGs at top of each other (higher sum - the vertical black "sum" arrows), do dense hit tests, hence increasing the overall
chance to get as many hits as possible. Elsewhere do more sparse tests.
Tighten this schema (decrease tolerance) as much as you dare.
EDIT: Fi is a bit confusing. Is it an ordered array or does it have random order (as i assumed)?
Jim Mischel's solution would work in a O(i+j) instead of the O(i*j) solution that you currently have. But, there is a (very) minor bug in his code. The correct code would be :
diff = ListValues[j] - results[i]; //no abs() here
if (abs(diff) < Episilon) //add abs() here
{
// mark this one with the x value
// and move to the next result
i = i + 1
}
the best methods will relay on the nature of your function f(x).
The best solution is if you can create the reversing to F(x) and use it
as you said F(x) is continuous:
therefore you can start evaluating small amount of far points, then find ranges that makes sense, and refine your "assumption" for x that f(x)=Fi
it is not bullet proof, but it is an option.
e.g. Fi=5.7; f(1)=1.4 ,f(4)=4,f(16)=12.6, f(10)=10.1, f(7)=6.5, f(5)=5.1, f(6)=5.8, you can take 5 < x < 7
on the same line as #1, and IF F(x) is hard to calculate, you can use Interpolation, and then evaluate F(x) only at the values that are probable.
Given are an iterator it over data points, the number of data points we have n, and the maximum number of samples we want to use to do some calculations (maxSamples).
Imagine a function calculateStatistics(Iterator it, int n, int maxSamples). This function should use the iterator to retrieve the data and do some (heavy) calculations on the data element retrieved.
if n <= maxSamples we will of course use each element we get from the iterator
if n > maxSamples we will have to choose which elements to look at and which to skip
I've been spending quite some time on this. The problem is of course how to choose when to skip an element and when to keep it. My approaches so far:
I don't want to take the first maxSamples coming from the iterator, because the values might not be evenly distributed.
Another idea was to use a random number generator and let me create maxSamples (distinct) random numbers between 0 and n and take the elements at these positions. But if e.g. n = 101 and maxSamples = 100 it gets more and more difficult to find a new distinct number not yet in the list, loosing lot of time just in the random number generation
My last idea was to do the contrary: to generate n - maxSamples random numbers and exclude the data elements at these positions elements. But this also doesn't seem to be a very good solution.
Do you have a good idea for this problem? Are there maybe standard known algorithms for this?
To provide some answer, a good way to collect a set of random numbers given collection size > elements needed, is the following. (in C++ ish pseudo code).
EDIT: you may need to iterate over and create the "someElements" vector first. If your elements are large they can be "pointers" to these elements to save space.
vector randomCollectionFromVector(someElements, numElementsToGrab) {
while(numElementsToGrab--) {
randPosition = rand() % someElements.size();
resultVector.push(someElements.get(randPosition))
someElements.remove(randPosition);
}
return resultVector;
}
If you don't care about changing your vector of elements, you could also remove random elements from someElements, as you mentioned. The algorithm would look very similar, and again, this is conceptually the same idea, you just pass someElements by reference, and manipulate it.
Something worth noting, is the quality of psuedo random distributions as far as how random they are, grows as the size of the distribution you used increases. So, you may tend to get better results if you pick which method you use based on which method results in the use of more random numbers. Example: if you have 100 values, and need 99, you should probably pick 99 values, as this will result in you using 99 pseudo random numbers, instead of just 1. Conversely, if you have 1000 values, and need 99, you should probably prefer the version where you remove 901 values, because you use more numbers from the psuedo random distribution. If what you want is a solid random distribution, this is a very simple optimization, that will greatly increase the quality of "fake randomness" that you see. Alternatively, if performance matters more than distribution, you would take the alternative or even just grab the first 99 values approach.
interval = n/(n-maxSamples) //an euclidian division of course
offset = random(0..(n-1)) //a random number between 0 and n-1
totalSkip = 0
indexSample = 0;
FOR it IN samples DO
indexSample++ // goes from 1 to n
IF totalSkip < (n-maxSamples) AND indexSample+offset % interval == 0 THEN
//do nothing with this sample
totalSkip++
ELSE
//work with this sample
ENDIF
ENDFOR
ASSERT(totalSkip == n-maxSamples) //to be sure
interval represents the distance between two samples to skip.
offset is not mandatory but it allows to have a very little diversity.
Based on the discussion, and greater understanding of your problem, I suggest the following. You can take advantage of a property of prime numbers that I think will net you a very good solution, that will appear to grab pseudo random numbers. It is illustrated in the following code.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
const int SOME_LARGE_PRIME = 577; //This prime should be larger than the size of your data set.
const int NUM_ELEMENTS = 100;
int lastValue = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < NUM_ELEMENTS; i++) {
lastValue += SOME_LARGE_PRIME;
cout << lastValue % NUM_ELEMENTS << endl;
}
}
Using the logic presented here, you can create a table of all values from 1 to "NUM_ELEMENTS". Because of the properties of prime numbers, you will not get any duplicates until you rotate all the way around back to the size of your data set. If you then take the first "NUM_SAMPLES" of these, and sort them, you can iterate through your data structure, and grab a pseudo random distribution of numbers(not very good random, but more random than a pre-determined interval), without extra space and only one pass over your data. Better yet, you can change the layout of the distribution by grabbing a random prime number each time, again must be larger than your data set, or the following example breaks.
PRIME = 3, data set size = 99. Won't work.
Of course, ultimately this is very similar to the pre-determined interval, but it inserts a level of randomness that you do not get by simply grabbing every "size/num_samples"th element.
This is called the Reservoir sampling
I have an Array with 1 and 0 spread over the array randomly.
int arr[N] = {1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1....................N}
Now I want to retrive all the 1's in the array as fast as possible, but the condition is I should not loose the exact position(based on index) of the array , so sorting option not valid.
So the only option left is linear searching ie O(n) , is there anything better than this.
The main problem behind linear scan is , I need to run the scan even
for X times. So I feel I need to have some kind of other datastructure
which maintains this list once the first linear scan happens, so that
I need not to run the linear scan again and again.
Let me be clear about final expectations-
I just need to find the number of 1's in a certain range of array , precisely I need to find numbers of 1's in the array within range of 40-100. So this can be random range and I need to find the counts of 1 within that range. I can't do sum and all as I need to iterate over the array over and over again because of different range requirements
I'm surprised you considered sorting as a faster alternative to linear search.
If you don't know where the ones occur, then there is no better way than linear searching. Perhaps if you used bits or char datatypes you could do some optimizations, but it depends on how you want to use this.
The best optimization that you could do on this is to overcome branch prediction. Because each value is zero or one, you can use it to advance the index of the array that is used to store the one-indices.
Simple approach:
int end = 0;
int indices[N];
for( int i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
if( arr[i] ) indices[end++] = i; // Slow due to branch prediction
}
Without branching:
int end = 0;
int indices[N];
for( int i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
indices[end] = i;
end += arr[i];
}
[edit] I tested the above, and found the version without branching was almost 3 times faster (4.36s versus 11.88s for 20 repeats on a randomly populated 100-million element array).
Coming back here to post results, I see you have updated your requirements. What you want is really easy with a dynamic programming approach...
All you do is create a new array that is one element larger, which stores the number of ones from the beginning of the array up to (but not including) the current index.
arr : 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
count : 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 7
(I've offset arr above so it lines up better)
Now you can compute the number of 1s in any range in O(1) time. To compute the number of 1s between index A and B, you just do:
int num = count[B+1] - count[A];
Obviously you can still use the non-branch-prediction version to generate the counts initially. All this should give you a pretty good speedup over the naive approach of summing for every query:
int *count = new int[N+1];
int total = 0;
count[0] = 0;
for( int i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
total += arr[i];
count[i+1] = total;
}
// to compute the ranged sum:
int range_sum( int *count, int a, int b )
{
if( b < a ) return range_sum(b,a);
return count[b+1] - count[a];
}
Well one time linear scanning is fine. Since you are looking for multiple scans across ranges of array I think that can be done in constant time. Here you go:
Scan the array and create a bitmap where key = key of array = sequence (1,2,3,4,5,6....).The value storedin bitmap would be a tuple<IsOne,cumulativeSum> where isOne is whether you have a one in there and cumulative Sum is addition of 1's as and wen you encounter them
Array = 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
Tuple: (1,1) (1,2) (0,2) (0,2) (1,3) (0,3) (1,4) (1,5) (1,6) (0,6) (1,7) (0,7)
CASE 1: When lower bound of cumulativeSum has a 0. Number of 1's [6,11] =
cumulativeSum at 11th position - cumulativeSum at 6th position = 7 - 3 = 4
CASE 2: When lower bound of cumulativeSum has a 1. Number of 1's [2,11] =
cumulativeSum at 11th position - cumulativeSum at 2nd position + 1 = 7-2+1 = 6
Step 1 is O(n)
Step 2 is 0(1)
Total complexity is linear no doubt but for your task where you have to work with the ranges several times the above Algorithm seems to be better if you have ample memory :)
Does it have to be a simple linear array data structure? Or can you create your own data structure which happens to have the desired properties, for which you're able to provide the required API, but whose implementation details can be hidden (encapsulated)?
If you can implement your own and if there is some guaranteed sparsity (to either 1s or 0s) then you might be able to offer better than linear performance. I see that you want to preserve (or be able to regenerate) the exact stream, so you'll have to store an array or bitmap or run-length encoding for that. (RLE will be useless if the stream is actually random rather than arbitrary but could be quite useful if there are significant sparsity or patterns with long strings of one or the other. For example a black&white raster of a bitmapped image is often a good candidate for RLE).
Let's say that your guaranteed that the stream will be sparse --- that no more than 10%, for example, of the bits will be 1s (or, conversely that more than 90% will be). If that's the case then you might model your solution on an RLE and maintain a count of all 1s (simply incremented as you set bits and decremented as you clear them). If there might be a need to quickly get the number of set bits for arbitrary ranges of these elements then instead of a single counter you can have a conveniently sized array of counters for partitions of the stream. (Conveniently-sized, in this case, means something which fits easily within memory, within your caches, or register sets, but which offers a reasonable trade off between computing a sum (all the partitions fully within the range) and the linear scan. The results for any arbitrary range is the sum of all the partitions fully enclosed by the range plus the results of linear scans for any fragments that are not aligned on your partition boundaries.
For a very, very, large stream you could even have a multi-tier "index" of partition sums --- traversing from the largest (most coarse) granularity down toward the "fragments" to either end (using the next layer of partition sums) and finishing with the linear search of only the small fragments.
Obviously such a structure represents trade offs between the complexity of building and maintaining the structure (inserting requires additional operations and, for an RLE, might be very expensive for anything other than appending/prepending) vs the expense of performing arbitrarily long linear search/increment scans.
If:
the purpose is to be able to find the number of 1s in the array at any time,
given that relatively few of the values in the array might change between one moment when you want to know the number and another moment, and
if you have to find the number of 1s in a changing array of n values m times,
... you can certainly do better than examining every cell in the array m times by using a caching strategy.
The first time you need the number of 1s, you certainly have to examine every cell, as others have pointed out. However, if you then store the number of 1s in a variable (say sum) and track changes to the array (by, for instance, requiring that all array updates occur through a specific update() function), every time a 0 is replaced in the array with a 1, the update() function can add 1 to sum and every time a 1 is replaced in the array with a 0, the update() function can subtract 1 from sum.
Thus, sum is always up-to-date after the first time that the number of 1s in the array is counted and there is no need for further counting.
(EDIT to take the updated question into account)
If the need is to return the number of 1s in a given range of the array, that can be done with a slightly more sophisticated caching strategy than the one I've just described.
You can keep a count of the 1s in each subset of the array and update the relevant subset count whenever a 0 is changed to a 1 or vice versa within that subset. Finding the total number of 1s in a given range within the array would then be a matter of adding the number of 1s in each subset that is fully contained within the range and then counting the number of 1s that are in the range but not in the subsets that have already been counted.
Depending on circumstances, it might be worthwhile to have a hierarchical arrangement in which (say) the number of 1s in the whole array is at the top of the hierarchy, the number of 1s in each 1/q th of the array is in the second level of the hierarchy, the number of 1s in each 1/(q^2) th of the array is in the third level of the hierarchy, etc. e.g. for q = 4, you would have the total number of 1s at the top, the number of 1s in each quarter of the array at the second level, the number of 1s in each sixteenth of the array at the third level, etc.
Are you using C (or derived language)? If so, can you control the encoding of your array? If, for example, you could use a bitmap to count. The nice thing about a bitmap, is that you can use a lookup table to sum the counts, though if your subrange ends aren't divisible by 8, you'll have to deal with end partial bytes specially, but the speedup will be significant.
If that's not the case, can you at least encode them as single bytes? In that case, you may be able to exploit sparseness if it exists (more specifically, the hope that there are often multi index swaths of zeros).
So for:
u8 input = {1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1....................N};
You can write something like (untested):
uint countBytesBy1FromTo(u8 *input, uint start, uint stop)
{ // function for counting one byte at a time, use with range of less than 4,
// use functions below for longer ranges
// assume it's just one's and zeros, otherwise we have to test/branch
uint sum;
u8 *end = input + stop;
for (u8 *each = input + start; each < end; each++)
sum += *each;
return sum;
}
countBytesBy8FromTo(u8 *input, uint start, uint stop)
{
u64 *chunks = (u64*)(input+start);
u64 *end = chunks + ((start - stop) >> 3);
uint sum = countBytesBy1FromTo((u8*)end, 0, stop - (u8*)end);
for (; chunks < end; chunks++)
{
if (*chunks)
{
sum += countBytesBy1FromTo((u8*)chunks, 0, 8);
}
}
}
The basic trick, is exploiting the ability to cast slices of your target array to single entities your language can look at in one swoop, and test by inference if ANY of the values of it are zeros, and then skip the whole block. The more zeros, the better it will work. In the case where your large cast integer always has at least one, this approach just adds overhead. You might find that using a u32 is better for your data. Or that adding a u32 test between the 1 and 8 helps. For datasets where zeros are much more common than ones, I've used this technique to great advantage.
Why is sorting invalid? You can clone the original array, sort the clone, and count and/or mark the locations of the 1s as needed.
Is there an optimal solution to this problem?
Describe an algorithm for finding duplicates in a file of one million phone numbers. The algorithm, when running, would only have two megabytes of memory available to it, which means you cannot load all the phone numbers into memory at once.
My 'naive' solution would be an O(n^2) solution which iterates over the values and just loads the file in chunks instead of all at once.
For i = 0 to 999,999
string currentVal = get the item at index i
for j = i+1 to 999,999
if (j - i mod fileChunkSize == 0)
load file chunk into array
if data[j] == currentVal
add currentVal to duplicateList and exit for
There must be another scenario were you can load the whole dataset in a really unique way and verify if a number is duplicated. Anyone have one?
Divide the file into M chunks, each of which is large enough to be sorted in memory. Sort them in memory.
For each set of two chunks, we will then carry out the last step of mergesort on two chunks to make one larger chunk (c_1 + c_2) (c_3 + c_4) .. (c_m-1 + c_m)
Point at the first element on c_1 and c_2 on disk, and make a new file (we'll call it c_1+2).
if c_1's pointed-to element is a smaller number than c_2's pointed-to element, copy it into c_1+2 and point to the next element of c_1.
Otherwise, copy c_2's pointed element into and point to the next element of c_2.
Repeat the previous step until both arrays are empty. You only need to use the space in memory needed to hold the two pointed-to numbers. During this process, if you encounter c_1 and c_2's pointed-to elements being equal, you have found a duplicate - you can copy it in twice and increment both pointers.
The resulting m/2 arrays can be recursively merged in the same manner- it will take log(m) of these merge steps to generate the correct array. Each number will be compared against each other number in a way that will find the duplicates.
Alternately, a quick and dirty solution as alluded to by #Evgeny Kluev is to make a bloom filter which is as large as you can reasonably fit in memory. You can then make a list of the index of each element which fails the bloom filter and loop through the file a second time in order to test these members for duplication.
I think Airza's solution is heading towards a good direction, but since sorting is not what you want, and it is more expensive you can do the following by combining with angelatlarge's approach:
Take a chunk C that fits in the memory of size M/2 .
Get the chunk Ci
Iterate through i and hash each element into a hash-table. If the element already exists then you know it is a duplicate, and you can mark it as a duplicate. (add its index into an array or something).
Get the next chunk Ci+1 and check if any of the key already exists in the hash table. If an element exists mark it for deletion.
Repeat with all chunks until you know they will not contain any duplicates from chunk Ci
Repeat steps 1,2 with chunk Ci+1
Deleted all elements marked for deletion (could be done during, whatever is more appropriate, it might be more expensive to delete one at the time if you have to shift everything else around).
This runs in O((N/M)*|C|) , where |C| is the chunk size. Notice that if M > 2N, then we only have one chunk, and this runs in O(N), which is optimal for deleting duplicates.
We simply hash them and make sure that all collisions are deleted.
Edit: Per requested, I'm providing details:
* N is the number phone numbers.
The size of the chunk will depend on the memory, it should be of size M/2.
This is the size of memory that will load a chunk of the file, since the whole file is too big to be loaded to memory.
This leaves another M/2 bytes to keep the hash table2, and/or a duplicate list1.
Hence, there should be N/(M/2) chunks, each of size |C| = M/2
The run time will be the number of chunks(N/(M/2)), times the size of each chunk |C| (or M/2). Overall, this should be linear (plus or minus the overhead of changing from one chunk to the other, which is why the best way to describe it is O( (N/M) * |C| )
a. Loading a chunk Ci. O(|C|)
b. Iterate through each element, test and set if not there O(1) will be hashed in which insertion and lookup should take.
c. If the element is already there, you can delete it.1
d. Get the next chunk, rinse and repeat (2N/M chunks, so O(N/M))
1 Removing an element might cost O(N), unless we keep a list and remove them all in one go, by avoiding to shift all the remaining elements whenever an element is removed.
2 If the phone numbers can all be represented as an integer < 232 - 1, we can avoid having a full hash-table and just use a flag map, saving piles of memory (we'll only need N-bits of memory)
Here's a somewhat detailed pseudo-code:
void DeleteDuplicate(File file, int numberOfPhones, int maxMemory)
{
//Assume each 1'000'000 number of phones that fit in 32-bits.
//Assume 2MB of memory
//Assume that arrays of bool are coalesced into 8 bools per byte instead of 1 bool per byte
int chunkSize = maxMemory / 2; // 2MB / 2 / 4-byes per int = 1MB or 256K integers
//numberOfPhones-bits. C++ vector<bool> for example would be space efficient
// Coalesced-size ~= 122KB | Non-Coalesced-size (worst-case) ~= 977KB
bool[] exists = new bool[numberOfPhones];
byte[] numberData = new byte[chunkSize];
int fileIndex = 0;
int bytesLoaded;
do //O(chunkNumber)
{
bytesLoaded = file.GetNextByes(chunkSize, /*out*/ numberData);
List<int> toRemove = new List<int>(); //we still got some 30KB-odd to spare, enough for some 6 thousand-odd duplicates that could be found
for (int ii = 0; ii < bytesLoaded; ii += 4)//O(chunkSize)
{
int phone = BytesToInt(numberData, ii);
if (exists[phone])
toRemove.push(ii);
else
exists[phone] = true;
}
for (int ii = toRemove.Length - 1; ii >= 0; --ii)
numberData.removeAt(toRemove[ii], 4);
File.Write(fileIndex, numberData);
fileIndex += bytesLoaded;
} while (bytesLoaded > 0); // while still stuff to load
}
If you can store temporary files you can load the file in chunks, sort each chunk, write it to a file, and then iterate through the chunks and look for duplicates. You can easily tell if a number is duplicated by comparing it to the next number in the file and the next number in each of the chunks. Then move to the next lowest number of all of the chunks and repeat until you run out of numbers.
Your runtime is O(n log n) due to the sorting.
I like the #airza solution, but perhaps there is another algorithm to consider: maybe one million phone numbers cannot be loaded into memory at once because they are expressed inefficiently, i.e. using more bytes per phone number than necessary. In that case, you might be able to have an efficient solution by hashing the phone numbers and storing the hashes in a (hash) table. Hash tables support dictionary operations (such as in) that let you find dupes easily.
To be more concrete about it, if each phone number is 13 bytes (such as a string in the format (NNN)NNN-NNNN), the string represents one of a billion numbers. As an integer, this can be stored in 4 bytes (instead of 13 in the string format). We then might be able to store this 4 byte "hash" in a hash table, because now our 1 billion hashed numbers take up as much space as 308 million numbers, not one billion. Ruling out impossible numbers (everything in area codes 000, 555, etc) might allow us reduce the hash size further.
There is a file that contains 10G(1000000000) number of integers, please find the Median of these integers. you are given 2G memory to do this. Can anyone come up with an reasonable way? thanks!
Create an array of 8-byte longs that has 2^16 entries. Take your input numbers, shift off the bottom sixteen bits, and create a histogram.
Now you count up in that histogram until you reach the bin that covers the midpoint of the values.
Pass through again, ignoring all numbers that don't have that same set of top bits, and make a histogram of the bottom bits.
Count up through that histogram until you reach the bin that covers the midpoint of the (entire list of) values.
Now you know the median, in O(n) time and O(1) space (in practice, under 1 MB).
Here's some sample Scala code that does this:
def medianFinder(numbers: Iterable[Int]) = {
def midArgMid(a: Array[Long], mid: Long) = {
val cuml = a.scanLeft(0L)(_ + _).drop(1)
cuml.zipWithIndex.dropWhile(_._1 < mid).head
}
val topHistogram = new Array[Long](65536)
var count = 0L
numbers.foreach(number => {
count += 1
topHistogram(number>>>16) += 1
})
val (topCount,topIndex) = midArgMid(topHistogram, (count+1)/2)
val botHistogram = new Array[Long](65536)
numbers.foreach(number => {
if ((number>>>16) == topIndex) botHistogram(number & 0xFFFF) += 1
})
val (botCount,botIndex) =
midArgMid(botHistogram, (count+1)/2 - (topCount-topHistogram(topIndex)))
(topIndex<<16) + botIndex
}
and here it is working on a small set of input data:
scala> medianFinder(List(1,123,12345,1234567,123456789))
res18: Int = 12345
If you have 64 bit integers stored, you can use the same strategy in 4 passes instead.
You can use the Medians of Medians algorithm.
If the file is in text format, you may be able to fit it in memory just by converting things to integers as you read them in, since an integer stored as characters may take more space than an integer stored as an integer, depending on the size of the integers and the type of text file. EDIT: You edited your original question; I can see now that you can't read them into memory, see below.
If you can't read them into memory, this is what I came up with:
Figure out how many integers you have. You may know this from the start. If not, then it only takes one pass through the file. Let's say this is S.
Use your 2G of memory to find the x largest integers (however many you can fit). You can do one pass through the file, keeping the x largest in a sorted list of some sort, discarding the rest as you go. Now you know the x-th largest integer. You can discard all of these except for the x-th largest, which I'll call x1.
Do another pass through, finding the next x largest integers less than x1, the least of which is x2.
I think you can see where I'm going with this. After a few passes, you will have read in the (S/2)-th largest integer (you'll have to keep track of how many integers you've found), which is your median. If S is even then you'll average the two in the middle.
Make a pass through the file and find count of integers and minimum and maximum integer value.
Take midpoint of min and max, and get count, min and max for values either side of the midpoint - by again reading through the file.
partition count > count => median lies within that partition.
Repeat for the partition, taking into account size of 'partitions to the left' (easy to maintain), and also watching for min = max.
Am sure this'd work for an arbitrary number of partitions as well.
Do an on-disk external mergesort on the file to sort the integers (counting them if that's not already known).
Once the file is sorted, seek to the middle number (odd case), or average the two middle numbers (even case) in the file to get the median.
The amount of memory used is adjustable and unaffected by the number of integers in the original file. One caveat of the external sort is that the intermediate sorting data needs to be written to disk.
Given n = number of integers in the original file:
Running time: O(nlogn)
Memory: O(1), adjustable
Disk: O(n)
Check out Torben's method in here:http://ndevilla.free.fr/median/median/index.html. It also has implementation in C at the bottom of the document.
My best guess that probabilistic median of medians would be the fastest one. Recipe:
Take next set of N integers (N should be big enough, say 1000 or 10000 elements)
Then calculate median of these integers and assign it to variable X_new.
If iteration is not first - calculate median of two medians:
X_global = (X_global + X_new) / 2
When you will see that X_global fluctuates not much - this means that you found approximate median of data.
But there some notes :
question arises - Is median error acceptable or not.
integers must be distributed randomly in a uniform way, for solution to work
EDIT:
I've played a bit with this algorithm, changed a bit idea - in each iteration we should sum X_new with decreasing weight, such as:
X_global = k*X_global + (1.-k)*X_new :
k from [0.5 .. 1.], and increases in each iteration.
Point is to make calculation of median to converge fast to some number in very small amount of iterations. So that very approximate median (with big error) is found between 100000000 array elements in only 252 iterations !!! Check this C experiment:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#define ARRAY_SIZE 100000000
#define RANGE_SIZE 1000
// probabilistic median of medians method
// should print 5000 as data average
// from ARRAY_SIZE of elements
int main (int argc, const char * argv[]) {
int iter = 0;
int X_global = 0;
int X_new = 0;
int i = 0;
float dk = 0.002;
float k = 0.5;
srand(time(NULL));
while (i<ARRAY_SIZE && k!=1.) {
X_new=0;
for (int j=i; j<i+RANGE_SIZE; j++) {
X_new+=rand()%10000 + 1;
}
X_new/=RANGE_SIZE;
if (iter>0) {
k += dk;
k = (k>1.)? 1.:k;
X_global = k*X_global+(1.-k)*X_new;
}
else {
X_global = X_new;
}
i+=RANGE_SIZE+1;
iter++;
printf("iter %d, median = %d \n",iter,X_global);
}
return 0;
}
Opps seems i'm talking about mean, not median. If it is so, and you need exactly median, not mean - ignore my post. In any case mean and median are very related concepts.
Good luck.
Here is the algorithm described by #Rex Kerr implemented in Java.
/**
* Computes the median.
* #param arr Array of strings, each element represents a distinct binary number and has the same number of bits (padded with leading zeroes if necessary)
* #return the median (number of rank ceil((m+1)/2) ) of the array as a string
*/
static String computeMedian(String[] arr) {
// rank of the median element
int m = (int) Math.ceil((arr.length+1)/2.0);
String bitMask = "";
int zeroBin = 0;
while (bitMask.length() < arr[0].length()) {
// puts elements which conform to the bitMask into one of two buckets
for (String curr : arr) {
if (curr.startsWith(bitMask))
if (curr.charAt(bitMask.length()) == '0')
zeroBin++;
}
// decides in which bucket the median is located
if (zeroBin >= m)
bitMask = bitMask.concat("0");
else {
m -= zeroBin;
bitMask = bitMask.concat("1");
}
zeroBin = 0;
}
return bitMask;
}
Some test cases and updates to the algorithm can be found here.
I was also asked the same question and i couldn't tell an exact answer so after the interview i went through some books on interviews and here is what i found from Cracking The Coding interview book.
Example: Numbers are randomly generated and stored into an (expanding) array. How
wouldyoukeep track of the median?
Our data structure brainstorm might look like the following:
• Linked list? Probably not. Linked lists tend not to do very well with accessing and
sorting numbers.
• Array? Maybe, but you already have an array. Could you somehow keep the elements
sorted? That's probably expensive. Let's hold off on this and return to it if it's needed.
• Binary tree? This is possible, since binary trees do fairly well with ordering. In fact, if the binary search tree is perfectly balanced, the top might be the median. But, be careful—if there's an even number of elements, the median is actually the average
of the middle two elements. The middle two elements can't both be at the top. This is probably a workable algorithm, but let's come back to it.
• Heap? A heap is really good at basic ordering and keeping track of max and mins.
This is actually interesting—if you had two heaps, you could keep track of the bigger
half and the smaller half of the elements. The bigger half is kept in a min heap, such
that the smallest element in the bigger half is at the root.The smaller half is kept in a
max heap, such that the biggest element of the smaller half is at the root. Now, with
these data structures, you have the potential median elements at the roots. If the
heaps are no longer the same size, you can quickly "rebalance" the heaps by popping
an element off the one heap and pushing it onto the other.
Note that the more problems you do, the more developed your instinct on which data
structure to apply will be. You will also develop a more finely tuned instinct as to which of these approaches is the most useful.