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.
Related
What are the cases when using hash table can improve performance, and when it does not? and what are the cases when using hash tables are not applicable?
What are the cases when using hash table can improve performance, and when it does not?
If you have reason to care, implement using hash tables and whatever else you're considering, put your actual data through, and measure which performs better.
That said, if the hash tables has the operations you need (i.e. you're not expecting to iterate it in sorted order, or compare it quickly to another hash table), and has millions or more (billions, trillions...) of elements, then it'll probably be your best choice, but a lot depends on the hash table implementation (especially the choice of closed vs. open hashing), object size, hash function quality and calculation cost / runtime), comparison cost, oddities of your computers memory performance at different cache levels... in short: too many things to make even an educated guess a better choice than measuring, when it matters.
and what are the cases when using hash tables are not applicable?
Mainly when:
The input can't be hashed (e.g. you're given binary blobs and don't know which bits in there are significant, but you do have an int cmp(const T&, const T&) function you could use for a std::map), or
the available/possible hash functions are very collision prone, or
you want to avoid worst-case performance hits for:
handling lots of hash-colliding elements (perhaps "engineered" by someone trying to crash or slow down your software)
resizing the hash table: unless presized to be large enough (which can be wasteful and slow when excessive memory's used), the majority of implementations will outgrow the arrays they're using for the hash table every now and then, then allocate a bigger array and copy content across: this can make the specific insertions that cause this rehashing to be much slower than the normal O(1) behaviour, even though the average is still O(1); if you need more consistent behaviour in all cases, something like a balance binary tree may serve
your access patterns are quite specialised (e.g. frequently operating on elements with keys that are "nearby" in some specific sort order), such that cache efficiency is better for other storage models that keep them nearby in memory (e.g. bucket sorted elements), even if you're not exactly relying on the sort order for e.g. iteration
We use Hash Tables to get access time of O(1). Imagine a dictionary. When you are looking for a word, eg "happy", you jump straight to 'H'. Here the hash function is determined by the starting alphabet. And then you look for happy within the H bucket (actually H bucket then HA bucket then HAP bucket anbd so on).
It doesn't make sense to use Hash Tables when your data is ordered or needs ordering like sorted numbers. (Alphabets are ordered ABCD....XYZ but it wouldn't matter if you switched A and Z, provided you know it is switched in your dictionary.)
I was wondering why many languages (Java, C++, Python, Perl etc) implement hash tables using linked lists to avoid collisions instead of arrays?
I mean instead of buckets of linked lists, we should use arrays.
If the concern is about the size of the array then that means that we have too many collisions so we already have a problem with the hash function and not the way we address collisions. Am I misunderstanding something?
I mean instead of buckets of linked lists, we should use arrays.
Pros and cons to everything, depending on many factors.
The two biggest problem with arrays:
changing capacity involves copying all content to another memory area
you have to choose between:
a) arrays of Element*s, adding one extra indirection during table operations, and one extra memory allocation per non-empty bucket with associated heap management overheads
b) arrays of Elements, such that the pre-existing Elements iterators/pointers/references are invalidated by some operations on other nodes (e.g. insert) (the linked list approach - or 2a above for that matter - needn't invalidate these)
...will ignore several smaller design choices about indirection with arrays...
Practical ways to reduce copying from 1. include keeping excess capacity (i.e. currently unused memory for anticipated or already-erased elements), and - if sizeof(Element) is much greater than sizeof(Element*) - you're pushed towards arrays-of-Element*s (with "2a" problems) rather than Element[]s/2b.
There are a couple other answers claiming erasing in arrays is more expensive than for linked lists, but the opposite's often true: searching contiguous Elements is faster than scanning a linked list (less steps in code, more cache friendly), and once found you can copy the last array Element or Element* over the one being erased then decrement size.
If the concern is about the size of the array then that means that we have too many collisions so we already have a problem with the hash function and not the way we address collisions. Am I misunderstanding something?
To answer that, let's look at what happens with a great hash function. Packing a million elements into a million buckets using a cryptographic strength hash, a few runs of my program counting the number of buckets to which 0, 1, 2 etc. elements hashed yielded...
0=367790 1=367843 2=184192 3=61200 4=15370 5=3035 6=486 7=71 8=11 9=2
0=367664 1=367788 2=184377 3=61424 4=15231 5=2933 6=497 7=75 8=10 10=1
0=367717 1=368151 2=183837 3=61328 4=15300 5=3104 6=486 7=64 8=10 9=3
If we increase that to 100 million elements - still with load factor 1.0:
0=36787653 1=36788486 2=18394273 3=6130573 4=1532728 5=306937 6=51005 7=7264 8=968 9=101 10=11 11=1
We can see the ratios are pretty stable. Even with load factor 1.0 (the default maximum for C++'s unordered_set and -map), 36.8% of buckets can be expected to be empty, another 36.8% handling one Element, 18.4% 2 Elements and so on. For any given array resizing logic you can easily get a sense of how often it will need to resize (and potentially copy elements). You're right that it doesn't look bad, and may be better than linked lists if you're doing lots of lookups or iterations, for this idealistic cryptographic-hash case.
But, good quality hashing is relatively expensive in CPU time, such that general purpose hash-table supporting hash functions are often very weak: e.g. it's very common for C++ Standard library implementations of std::hash<int> to return their argument, and MS Visual C++'s std::hash<std::string> picks 10 characters evently spaced along the string to incorporate in the hash value, regardless of how long the string is.
Clearly implementation's experience has been that this combination of weak-but-fast hash functions and linked lists (or trees) to handle the greater collision proneness works out faster on average - and has less user-antagonising manifestations of obnoxiously bad performance - for everyday keys and requirements.
Strategy 1
Use (small) arrays which get instantiated and subsequently filled once collisions occur. 1 heap operation for the allocation of the array, then room for N-1 more. If no collision ever occurs again for that bucket, N-1 capacity for entries is wasted. List wins, if collisions are rare, no excess memory is allocated just for the probability of having more overflows on a bucket. Removing items is also more expensive. Either mark deleted spots in the array or move the stuff behind it to the front. And what if the array is full? Linked list of arrays or resize the array?
One potential benefit of using arrays would be to do a sorted insert and then binary search upon retrieval. The linked list approach cannot compete with that. But whether or not that pays off depends on the write/retrieve ratio. The less frequently writing occurs, the more could this pay off.
Strategy 2
Use lists. You pay for what you get. 1 collision = 1 heap operation. No eager assumption (and price to pay in terms of memory) that "more will come". Linear search within the collision lists. Cheaper delete. (Not counting free() here). One major motivation to think of arrays instead of lists would be to reduce the amount of heap operations. Amusingly the general assumption seems to be that they are cheap. But not many will actually know how much time an allocation requires compared to, say traversing the list looking for a match.
Strategy 3
Use neither array nor lists but store the overflow entries within the hash table at another location. Last time I mentioned that here, I got frowned upon a bit. Benefit: 0 memory allocations. Probably works best if you have indeed low fill grade of the table and only few collisions.
Summary
There are indeed many options and trade-offs to choose from. Generic hash table implementations such as those in standard libraries cannot make any assumption regarding write/read ratio, quality of hash key, use cases, etc. If, on the other hand all those traits of a hash table application are known (and if it is worth the effort), it is well possible to create an optimized implementation of a hash table which is tailored for the set of trade offs the application requires.
The reason is, that the expected length of these lists is tiny, with only zero, one, or two entries in the vast majority of cases. Yet these lists may also become arbitrarily long in the worst case of a really bad hash function. And even though this worst case is not the case that hash tables are optimized for, they still need to be able to handle it gracefully.
Now, for an array based approach, you would need to set a minimal array size. And, if that initial array size is anything other then zero, you already have significant space overhead due to all the empty lists. A minimal array size of two would mean that you waste half your space. And you would need to implement logic to reallocate the arrays when they become full because you cannot put an upper limit to the list length, you need to be able to handle the worst case.
The list based approach is much more efficient under these constraints: It has only the allocation overhead for the node objects, most accesses have the same amount of indirection as the array based approach, and it's easier to write.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to write an array based implementation, but its significantly more complex and less efficient than the list based approach.
why many languages (Java, C++, Python, Perl etc) implement hash tables using linked lists to avoid collisions instead of arrays?
I'm almost sure, at least for most from that "many" languages:
Original implementors of hash tables for these languages just followed classic algorithm description from Knuth/other algorithmic book, and didn't even consider such subtle implementation choices.
Some observations:
Even using collision resolution with separate chains instead of, say, open addressing, for "most generic hash table implementation" is seriously doubtful choice. My personal conviction -- it is not the right choice.
When hash table's load factor is pretty low (that should chosen in nearly 99% hash table usages), the difference between the suggested approaches hardly could affect overall data structure perfromance (as cmaster explained in the beginning of his answer, and delnan meaningfully refined in the comments). Since generic hash table implementations in languages are not designed for high density, "linked lists vs arrays" is not a pressing issue for them.
Returning to the topic question itself, I don't see any conceptual reason why linked lists should be better than arrays. I can easily imagine, that, in fact, arrays are faster on modern hardware / consume less memory with modern momory allocators inside modern language runtimes / operating systems. Especially when the hash table's key is primitive, or a copied structure. You can find some arguments backing this opinion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table#Separate_chaining_with_other_structures
But the only way to find the correct answer (for particular CPU, OS, memory allocator, virtual machine and it's garbage collection algorithm, and the hash table use case / workload!) is to implement both approaches and compare them.
Am I misunderstanding something?
No, you don't misunderstand anything, your question is legal. It's an example of fair confusion, when something is done in some specific way not for a strong reason, but, largely, by occasion.
If is implemented using arrays, in case of insertion it will be costly due to reallocation which in case of linked list doesn`t happen.
Coming to the case of deletion we have to search the complete array then either mark it as delete or move the remaining elements. (in the former case it makes the insertion even more difficult as we have to search for empty slots).
To improve the worst case time complexity from o(n) to o(logn), once the number of items in a hash bucket grows beyond a certain threshold, that bucket will switch from using a linked list of entries to a balanced tree (in java).
Background: I'm going to be inserting about a billion key value pairs. I need an in-memory index with which I can simultaneously do look ups for the (32 bit integer) value for a (unique, 64 bit integer) key. There's no updating, no deleting and no traversing. The keys are generally gradually increasing with time.
What index structure is most appropriate to handle this?
The requirements I can think of are:
It needs to have efficient rebalancing, due to the increasing keys
It needs to use memory efficiently to fit in ram, preferably < 28GB
It needs to have very efficient lookups
There's probably no more efficient datastructure for this problem than a simple sorted vector. (Actually, given alignment issues and depending on access characteristics, you might want to put keys and values in separate vectors.) But there are a number of practical problems, particularly if you don't know how big the data will be. If you do know this, or if you're prepared to just preallocate too much space and then die if you get more data than will fit in this space, then that's fine, although you still need to worry about keeping the vector sorted.
A possibly better approach is to keep a binary search tree of index ranges, where the leaves of the BST point to "clumps" of data (i.e. vectors). (This is essentially a B+ tree.) The clumps can be reasonably large; I'd say something like the amount of data you expect to receive in a couple of minutes, or several thousand entries. They don't have to all be the same size. (B+-trees usually have a smaller fanout than that, but since your data is "mostly sorted", you should be able to use a larger one. Don't make it too large; the only point is to reduce overhead and possibly cache-thrashing.)
Since your data is "mostly sorted", you can accumulate data for a while, keeping it in an ordinary ordered map (assuming you have such a thing), or even in a vector using insertion sort. When this buffer gets large enough, you can append it to your main data structure as a single clump, repartitioning the last clump to deal with overlaps.
If you're reasonably certain that you will only rarely get out-of-order keys, would be to keep a second conventional BST of out-of-order data elements. Any element which cannot be accomodated by repartitioning the new clump and the previous last one can just be added to this BST. To do a lookup, you do a parallel lookup between the main structure and the out-of-order structure.
If you're paranoid or not certain enough about the amount of unordered data, just use the standard B+-tree insertion algorithm, which consists of creating clumps with a little bit of reserved but unused space to allow for insertions (a few per cent; you want to avoid space overhead), and splitting a clump if necessary.
I was asked to stay away from HashMap or any sort of Hashing.
The question went something like this -
Lets say you have PRODUCT IDs of up to 20 decimals, along with Product Descriptions. Without using Maps or any sort of hashing function, what's the best/most efficient way to store/retrieve these product IDs along with their descriptions?
Why is using Maps a bad idea for such a scenario?
What changes would you make to sell your solution to Amazon?
A map is good to use when insert/remove/lookup operations are interleaved. Every operations are amortized in O(log n).
In your exemple you are only doing search operation. You may consider that any database update (inserting/removing a product) won't happen so much time. Therefore probably the interviewer want you to get the best data structure for lookup operations.
In this case I can see only some as already proposed in other answers:
Sorted array (doing a binary search)
Hasmap
trie
With a trie , if product ids do not share a common prefix, there is good chance to find the product description only looking at the first character of the prefix (or only the very first characters). For instance, let's take that product id list , with 125 products:
"1"
"2"
"3"
...
"123"
"124"
"1234567"
Let's assume you are looking for the product id titled "1234567" in your trie, only looking to the first letters: "1" then "2" then "3" then "4" will lead to the good product description. No need to read the remaining of the product id as there is no other possibilities.
Considering the product id length as n , your lookup will be in O(n). But as in the exemple explained it above it could be even faster to retreive the product description. As the procduct ID is limited in size (20 characters) the trie height will be limited to 20 levels. That actually means you can consider the look up operations will never goes beyond a constant time, as your search will never goes beyong the trie height => O(1). While any BST lookups are at best amortized O(log N), N being the number of items in your tree .
While an hashmap could lead you to slower lookup as you'll need to compute an index with an hash function that is probably implemented reading the whole product id length. Plus browsing a list in case of collision with other product ids.
Doing a binary search on a sorted array, and performance in lookup operations will depends on the number of items in your database.
A B-Tree in my opinion. Does that still count as a Map?
Mostly because you can have many items loaded at once in memory. Searching these items in memory is very fast.
Consecutive integer numbers give perfect choice for the hash map but it only has one problem, as it does not have multithreaded access by default. Also since Amazon was mentioned in your question I may think that you need to take into account concurency and RAM limitation issues.
What you might do in the response to such question is to explain that since
you are dissallowed to use any built-in data storage schemes, all you can do is to "emulate" one.
So, let's say you have M = 10^20 products with their numbers and descriptions.
You can partition this set to the groups of N subsets.
Then you can organize M/N containers which have sugnificantly reduced number of elements. Using this idea recursively will give you a way to store the whole set in containers with such property that access to them would have accepted performance rate.
To illustrate this idea, consider a smaller example of only 20 elements.
I would like you to imagive the file system with directories "1", "2", "3", "4".
In each directory you store the product descriptions as files in the following way:
folder 1: files 1 to 5
folder 2: files 6 to 10
...
folder 4: files 16 to 20
Then your search would only need two steps to find the file.
First, you search for a correct folder by dividing 20 / 5 (your M/N).
Then, you use the given ID to read the product description stored in a file.
This is just a very rough description, however, the idea is very intuitive.
So, perhaps this is what your interviewer wanted to hear.
As for myself, when I face such questions on interview, even if I fail to get the question correctly (which is the worst case :)) I always try to get the correct answer from the interviewer.
Best/efficient for what? Would have been my answer.
E.g. for storing them, probably the fast thing to do are two arrays with 20 elements each. One for the ids, on for the description. Iterating over those is pretty fast to. And it is efficient memory wise.
Of course the solution is pretty useless for any real application, but so is the question.
There is an interesting alternative to B-Tree: Radix Tree
I think what he wanted you to do, and I'm not saying it's a good idea, is to use the computer memory space.
If you use a 64-bit (virtual) memory address, and assuming you have all the address space for your data (which is never the case) you can store a one-byte value.
You could use the ProductID as an address, casting it to a pointer, and then get that byte, which might be an offset in another memory for actual data.
I wouldn't do it this way, but perhaps that is the answer they were looking for.
Asaf
I wonder if they wanted you to note that in an ecommerce application (such as Amazon's), a common use case is "reverse lookup": retrieve the product ID using the description. For this, an inverted index is used, where each keyword in a description is an index key, which is associated with a list of relevant product identifiers. Binary trees or skip lists are good ways to index these key words.
Regarding the product identifier index: In practice, B-Trees (which are not binary search trees) would be used for a large, disk-based index of 20-digit identifiers. However, they may have been looking for a toy solution that could be implemented in RAM. Since the "alphabet" of decimal numbers is so small, it lends itself very nicely to a trie.
The hashmaps work really well if the hashing function gives you a very uniform distribution of the hashvalues of the existing keys. With really bad hash function it can happen so that hash values of your 20 values will be the same, which will push the retrieval time to O(n). The binary search on the other hand guaranties you O(log n), but inserting data is more expensive.
All of this is very incremental, the bigger your dataset is the less are the chances of a bad key distribution (if you are using a good, proven hash algorithm), and on smaller data sets the difference between O(n) and O(log n) is not much to worry about.
If the size is limited sometimes it's faster to use a sorted list.
When you use Hash-anything, you first have to calculate a hash, then locate the hash bucket, then use equals on all elements in the bucket. So it all adds up.
On the other hand you could use just a simple ArrayList ( or any other List flavor that is suitable for the application), sort it with java.util.Collections.sort and use java.util.Collections.binarySearch to find an element.
But as Artyom has pointed out maybe a simple linear search would be much faster in this case.
On the other hand, from maintainability point of view, I would normally use HashMap ( or LinkedHashMap ) here, and would only do something special here when profiler would tell me to do it. Also collections of 20 have a tendency to become collections of 20000 over time and all this optimization would be wasted.
There's nothing wrong with hashing or B-trees for this kind of situation - your interviewer probably just wanted you to think a little, instead of coming out with the expected answer. It's a good sign, when interviewers want candidates to think. It shows that the organization values thought, as opposed to merely parroting out something from the lecture notes from CS0210.
Incidentally, I'm assuming that "20 decimal product ids" means "a large collection of product ids, whose format is 20 decimal characters".... because if there's only 20 of them, there's no value in considering the algorithm. If you can't use hashing or Btrees code a linear search and move on. If you like, sort your array, and use a binary search.
But if my assumption is right, then what the interviewer is asking seems to revolve around the time/space tradeoff of hashmaps. It's possible to improve on the time/space curve of hashmaps - hashmaps do have collisions. So you might be able to get some improvement by converting the 20 decimal digits to a number, and using that as an index to a sparsely populated array... a really big array. :)
Selling it to Amazon? Good luck with that. Whatever you come up with would have to be patentable, and nothing in this discussion seems to rise to that level.
20 decimal PRODUCT IDs, along with Product Description
Simple linear search would be very good...
I would create one simple array with ids. And other array with data.
Linear search for small amount of keys (20!) is much more efficient then any binary-tree or hash.
I have a feeling based on their answer about product ids and two digits the answer they were looking for is to convert the numeric product ids into a different base system or packed form.
They made a point to indicate the product description was with the product ids to tell you that a higher base system could be used within the current fields datatype.
Your interviewer might be looking for a trie. If you have a [small] constant upper bound on your key, then you have O(1) insert and lookup.
I think what he wanted you to do, and
I'm not saying it's a good idea, is to
use the computer memory space.
If you use a 64-bit (virtual) memory
address, and assuming you have all the
address space for your data (which is
never the case) you can store a
one-byte value.
Unfortunately 2^64 =approx= 1.8 * 10^19. Just slightly below 10^20. Coincidence?
log2(10^20) = 66.43.
Here's a slightly evil proposal.
OK, 2^64 bits can fit inside a memory space.
Assume a bound of N bytes for the description, say N=200. (who wants to download Anna Karenina when they're looking for toasters?)
Commandeer 8*N 64-bit machines with heavy RAM. Amazon can swing this.
Every machine loads in their (very sparse) bitmap one bit of the description text for all descriptions. Let the MMU/virtual memory handle the sparsity.
Broadcast the product tag as a 59-bit number and the bit mask for one byte. (59 = ceil(log2(10^20)) - 8)
Every machine returns one bit from the product description. Lookups are a virtual memory dereference. You can even insert and delete.
Of course paging will start to be a bitch at some point!
Oddly enough, it will work the best if product-id's are as clumpy and ungood a hash as possible.
I need an algorithm to store a key/value pair, where the key is an Int64. I'm currently using a sorted IntList (same as a TStringList, but stores int64s). This gives me O(log n) for search, Insert and delete operations. Since I don't ever need the items sorted, this is a little inefficient. I need some kind of hashtable for O(1) operations. The problem is that most implementations I can find assume the key is a string. Now I could obviously convert the Int64 key to a string, but this does seem wasteful. Any ideas?
I do not know the number of items before they are entered to the data structure.
I also should add that I have implemented the same component in .net, using Dictionary, and it's adding the items that is so much faster in the .net version. Once the data structure is setup, traversals and retrievals are not that bad in comparison, but it's insertion that is killing me.
Delphi 2009 and later has added Generics.
So starting Delphi 2009, you can implement your key/value pair in a similar manner as you do in .NET using a TDICTIONARY.
And TDICTIONARY in Delphi uses a hash table table and has O(1) operations.
You could build a hash-table, where the hash-value is a simple modulo of the Int64 you're adding to the hash.
Any good hash-table implementation will have the generation of the hash-index (by hashing the key) separate from the rest of the logic.
Some implementations are summed up here : Hashtable implementation for Delphi 5
You can compute a hash value directly from the int64 value, but for that you need to find a hash function which distributes the different int64 values evenly, so that you get little to no collisions. This of course depends on the values of those keys. If you don't know the number of items you most probably also don't know how these int64 values are distributed, so coming up with a good hash function will be hard to impossible.
Assuming your keys are not multiples of something (like addresses, which will be multiples of 4, 8, 16 and so on) you could speed things up a little by using a list of several of those IntList objects, and compute first an index into this array of lists. Using the mod operator and a prime number would be an easy way to calculate the list index. As always this is a trade-off between speed and memory consumption.
You might also google for a good implementation of sparse arrays. IIRC the EZDSL library by Julian Bucknall has one.
Some thoughts, not a full blown solution.
Unless there is definite proof that the search itself is the bottleneck (don't use your "feeling" to detect bottlenecks, use a code profiler) I would stick with the IntList... If the time spent in the actual search/insert/delete does not amount for at least 20% of the total processor time, don't even bother.
If you still want a hashtable, then ...
Do not convert to a string. The conversion would allocate a new string from the heap, which is much more costly than doing the search itself. Use the int64 modulo some cleverly chosen prime number as the hash key.
Hashtables will give you O(1) only if they are large enough. Otherwise, you will get a large amount of records that share the same hash key. Make it too short, you'll waste your time searching (linearly !) through the linked list. Make it too large, and you waste memory.
Keep in mind that hash tables require some form of linked list to keep all records sharing the same key. This linked list must be implemented either by adding a "next" pointer in the payload objects (which breaks encapsulation - the object does not have to know it is stored in a hash table) or allocating a small helper object. This allocation is likely to be much more costly than the O(log) of the sorted list.