What is the best way to remove an entry from a hashtable that uses linear probing? One way to do this would be to use a flag to indicate deleted elements? Are there any ways better than this?
An easy technique is to:
Find and remove the desired element
Go to the next bucket
If the bucket is empty, quit
If the bucket is full, delete the element in that bucket and re-add it to the hash table using the normal means. The item must be removed before re-adding, because it is likely that the item could be added back into its original spot.
Repeat step 2.
This technique keeps your table tidy at the expense of slightly slower deletions.
It depends on how you handle overflow and whether (1) the item being removed is in an overflow slot or not, and (2) if there are overflow items beyond the item being removed, whether they have the hash key of the item being removed or possibly some other hash key. [Overlooking that double condition is a common source of bugs in deletion implementations.]
If collisions overflow into a linked list, it is pretty easy. You're either popping up the list (which may have gone empty) or deleting a member from the middle or end of the linked list. Those are fun and not particularly difficult. There can be other optimizations to avoid excessive memory allocations and freeings to make this even more efficient.
For linear probing, Knuth suggests that a simple approach is to have a way to mark a slot as empty, deleted, or occupied. Mark a removed occupant slot as deleted so that overflow by linear probing will skip past it, but if an insertion is needed, you can fill the first deleted slot that you passed over [The Art of Computer Programming, vol.3: Sorting and Searching, section 6.4 Hashing, p. 533 (ed.2)]. This assumes that deletions are rather rare.
Knuth gives a nice refinment as Algorithm R6.4 [pp. 533-534] that instead marks the cell as empty rather than deleted, and then finds ways to move table entries back closer to their initial-probe location by moving the hole that was just made until it ends up next to another hole.
Knuth cautions that this will move existing still-occupied slot entries and is not a good idea if pointers to the slots are being held onto outside of the hash table. [If you have garbage-collected- or other managed-references in the slots, it is all right to move the slot, since it is the reference that is being used outside of the table and it doesn't matter where the slot that references the same object is in the table.]
The Python hash table implementation (arguable very fast) uses dummy elements to mark deletions. As you grow or shrink or table (assuming you're not doing a fixed-size table), you can drop the dummies at the same time.
If you have access to a copy, have a look at the article in Beautiful Code about the implementation.
The best general solutions I can think of include:
If you're can use a non-const iterator (ala C++ STL or Java), you should be able to remove them as you encounter them. Presumably, though, you wouldn't be asking this question unless you're using a const iterator or an enumerator which would be invalidated if the underlying collection is modified.
As you said, you could mark a deleted flag within the contained object. This doesn't release any memory or reduce collisions on the key, though, so it's not the best solution. Also requires the addition of a property on the class that probably doesn't really belong there. If this bothers you as much as it would me, or if you simply can't add a flag to the stored object (perhaps you don't control the class), you could store these flags in a separate hash table. This requires the most long-term memory use.
Push the keys of the to-be-removed items into a vector or array list while traversing the hash table. After releasing the enumerator, loop through this secondary list and remove the keys from the hash table. If you have a lot of items to remove and/or the keys are large (which they shouldn't be), this may not be the best solution.
If you're going to end up removing more items from the hash table than you're leaving in there, it may be better to create a new hash table, and as you traverse your original one, add to the new hash table only the items you're going to keep. Then replace your reference(s) to the old hash table with the new one. This saves a secondary list iteration, but it's probably only efficient if the new hash table will have significantly fewer items than the original one, and it definitely only works if you can change all the references to the original hash table, of course.
If your hash table gives you access to its collection of keys, you may be able to iterate through those and remove items from the hash table in one pass.
If your hash table or some helper in your library provides you with predicate-based collection modifiers, you may have a Remove() function to which you can pass a lambda expression or function pointer to identify the items to remove.
A common technique when time is a factor is to have a second table of deleted items, and clean up the main table when you have time. Commonly used in search engines.
How about enhancing the hash table to contain pointers like a linked list?
When you insert, if the bucket is full, create a pointer from this bucket to the bucket where the new field in stored.
While deleting something from the hashtable, the solution will be equivalent to how you write a function to delete a node from linkedlist.
Related
Can two items in a hashmap be in different locations but have the same hashcode?
I'm new to hashing, and I've recently learned about hashmaps. I was wondering whether two objects with the same hashcode can possibly go to different locations in a hashmap?
I'm not completely sure and would appreciate any help
As #Dai pointed out in the comments, this will depend on what kind of hash table you're using. (Turns out, there's a bunch of different ways to make a hash table, and no one data structure is "the" way that hash tables work!)
One of more common hash tables uses a strategy called closed addressing. In closed addressing, every item is mapped to a slot based on its hash code and stored with all other items that also end up in that slot. Lookups are then done by finding which bucket to look in, then inspecting all the items in that bucket. In that case, any two items with the same hash code will end up in the same bucket. (They can't literally occupy the same spot within that bucket, though.)
Another strategy for building hash tables uses an approach called open addressing. This is a family of different methods that are all based on the following idea. We require that each slot in the table store at most one element. As before, to do an insertion, we use the element's hash code to figure out which slot to put it in. If the slot is empty, great! We put the element there. If that slot is full, we can't put the item there. Instead, using some predictable strategy, we start looking at other slots until we find a free one, then put the item there. (The simplest way of doing this, linear probing, works by trying the next slot after the desired slot, then the next one, etc., wrapping around if need be.) In this system, since we can't store multiple items in the same spot, no, two elements with the same hash code don't have to (and in fact, can't!) occupy the same spot.
A more recent hashing strategy that's becoming more popular is cuckoo hashing. In cuckoo hashing, we maintain some small number of separate hash tables (typically, two or three), where each slot can only hold one item. To insert an element, we try placing it in the first table at a spot determined by its hash code. If that spot is free, great! We put the item there. If not, we kick out the item there and try putting that item in the next table. This process repeats until eventually everything comes to rest or we get caught in a loop. Like open addressing, this system prevents multiple items from being stored in the same slot, so two elements with the same hash code might go to different places. (There are variations on cuckoo hashing in which each table slot can store a fixed but small number of items, in which case you could have two items with the same hash code in the same spot. But it's not guaranteed.)
There are some other hashing schemes I didn't describe here. FKS perfect hashing works by using two layers of hash tables, along the lines of closed addressing, but periodically rebuilds the whole table to ensure that no one bucket is too overloaded. Extendible hashing uses a trie-like structure to grow overflowing buckets once they become too fully. Hopscotch hashing is a hybrid between linear probing and chained hashing and plays well with concurrency. But hopefully this gives you a sense of how the type of hash table you use influences the answer to your question!
What techniques are known to prevent iterator invalidation after/during rehashing? In particular, I'm interested in collision-chaining hash tables with incremental rehashing.
Suppose we're iterating a hash table via an iterator, insert an element during the iteration, and that insertion causes full or partial table rehash. I'm looking for hash table variants which allow to continue iteration and be sure that all elements are visited (except the newly inserted one maybe, it doesn't matter) and no element is visited twice.
AFAIK C++ unordered_map invalidates iterators during rehash. Also, AFAIK Go's map has incremental rehashing and doesn't invalidate iterators (range loop state), so it's likely what I'm looking for, but I can't fully understand the source code so far.
One possible solution is to have a doubly-linked list of all elements, parallel to the hash table, which is not affected by rehashing. This solution requires two extra pointers per element. I feel that better solutions should exist.
AFAIK C++ unordered_map invalidates iterators during rehash.
Correct. cppreference.com summarises unordered_map iterator invalidation thus:
Operations Invalidated
========== ===========
All read only operations, swap, std::swap Never
clear, rehash, reserve, operator= Always
insert, emplace, emplace_hint, operator[] Only if causes rehash
erase Only to the element erased
If you want to use unordered_map, your options are:
call reserve() before you start your iteration/insertions, to avoid rehashing
change max_load_factor() before you start your iterations/insertions, to avoid rehashing
store the elements to be inserted in say a vector during the iteration, then move them into the unordered_map afterwards
create e.g. vector<T*> or vector<reference_wrapper<T>> to the elements, iterate over it instead of the unordered_map, but still do your insertions into the unordered_map
If you really want incremental rehashing, you could write a class that wraps two unordered_maps, and when you see an insertion that would cause a rehash of the first map, you start inserting into the second (for which you'd reserve twice the size of the first map). You could manually control when all the elements from the first map were shifted to the second, or have it happen as a side effect of some other operation (e.g. migrate one element each time a new element is inserted). This wrapping approach will be much easier than writing an incremental rehashing table from scratch.
I am studying hash table at the moment, and got a question about its implementation with a fixed size of buckets.
Suppose we have a hash table with 23 elements(for example). Let's use the simplest hash function (hash_value = key%table_size) and the keys being integers only. If we say that one bucket can have at most only 1 element(no separate chaining), does it mean that when all buckets are full we will no longer be able to insert any element in the table at all? Or will we have to actually replace element that has the same hash value with a new element?
I do understand that I am putting a lot of constrains , and the real implementation might never look like that,but I want to be sure I understand that particular case.
A real implementation usually allows for a hash table to be able to resize, but this usually takes a long time and is undesired. Considering a fixed-size hash table, it would probably return an error code or throw an exception for the user to treat that error or not.
Or will we have to actually replace element that has the same hash value with a new element?
In Java's HashMap if you add a key that equals to another already present in the hash table only the value associated with that key will be replaced by the new one, but never if two keys hash to the same hash.
Yes. An "open" hash table - which you are describing - has a fixed size, so it can fill up.
However implementations will usually respond by copying all contents into a new, bigger table. In fact, normally they won't wait to fill entirely, but use some criterion - for example a fraction of all space used (sometimes called the "load factor") - to decide when it's time to expand.
Some implementations will also "shrink" themselves to a smaller table if the load factor becomes too small due to deletions.
You'd probably find reading Google's hash table implementation, which includes some documentation of its internals, to be a good learning experience.
I'm using tombstone method to delete elements from a hash table.
That is, instead of deallocating the node and reorganizing the hash table I simply put DELETED mark on the deleted index and making it available for further INSERT operations and avoid it from breaking the SEARCH operation.
However, after # of those markers exceed a certain number I actually want to deallocate those nodes and reorganize my table.
I've thought of allocating a new table which has size of: Old Table Size - # of DELETED marks and inserting nodes that are NOT EMPTY and that do not have DELETED mark to this new table
using the regular INSERT but this seemed like overkill to me. Is there a better method to do what I want ?
My table uses Open Adressing with hash functions such as Linear Probing, Double Hashing etc.
The algorithm you describe is essentially rehashing, and that's an entirely reasonable approach to the problem. It has the virtue of being exactly the same code as you would use when your hash table occupancy becomes too large.
Estimating an appropriate size for the new table is tricky. It's usually a good idea to not shrink hash tables aggressively after deletions, in case the table is about to start growing again.
Can somebody explain the main differences between (advantages / disadvantages) the two implementations?
For a library, what implementation is recommended?
Wikipedia's article on hash tables gives a distinctly better explanation and overview of different hash table schemes that people have used than I'm able to off the top of my head. In fact you're probably better off reading that article than asking the question here. :)
That said...
A chained hash table indexes into an array of pointers to the heads of linked lists. Each linked list cell has the key for which it was allocated and the value which was inserted for that key. When you want to look up a particular element from its key, the key's hash is used to work out which linked list to follow, and then that particular list is traversed to find the element that you're after. If more than one key in the hash table has the same hash, then you'll have linked lists with more than one element.
The downside of chained hashing is having to follow pointers in order to search linked lists. The upside is that chained hash tables only get linearly slower as the load factor (the ratio of elements in the hash table to the length of the bucket array) increases, even if it rises above 1.
An open-addressing hash table indexes into an array of pointers to pairs of (key, value). You use the key's hash value to work out which slot in the array to look at first. If more than one key in the hash table has the same hash, then you use some scheme to decide on another slot to look in instead. For example, linear probing is where you look at the next slot after the one chosen, and then the next slot after that, and so on until you either find a slot that matches the key you're looking for, or you hit an empty slot (in which case the key must not be there).
Open-addressing is usually faster than chained hashing when the load factor is low because you don't have to follow pointers between list nodes. It gets very, very slow if the load factor approaches 1, because you end up usually having to search through many of the slots in the bucket array before you find either the key that you were looking for or an empty slot. Also, you can never have more elements in the hash table than there are entries in the bucket array.
To deal with the fact that all hash tables at least get slower (and in some cases actually break completely) when their load factor approaches 1, practical hash table implementations make the bucket array larger (by allocating a new bucket array, and copying elements from the old one into the new one, then freeing the old one) when the load factor gets above a certain value (typically about 0.7).
There are lots of variations on all of the above. Again, please see the wikipedia article, it really is quite good.
For a library that is meant to be used by other people, I would strongly recommend experimenting. Since they're generally quite performance-crucial, you're usually best off using somebody else's implementation of a hash table which has already been carefully tuned. There are lots of open-source BSD, LGPL and GPL licensed hash table implementations.
If you're working with GTK, for example, then you'll find that there's a good hash table in GLib.
My understanding (in simple terms) is that both the methods has pros and cons, though most of the libraries use Chaining strategy.
Chaining Method:
Here the hash tables array maps to a linked list of items. This is efficient if the number of collision is fairly small. The worst case scenario is O(n) where n is the number of elements in the table.
Open Addressing with Linear Probe:
Here when the collision occurs, move on to the next index until we find an open spot. So, if the number of collision is low, this is very fast and space efficient. The limitation here is the total number of entries in the table is limited by the size of the array. This is not the case with chaining.
There is another approach which is Chaining with binary search trees. In this approach, when the collision occurs, they are stored in binary search tree instead of linked list. Hence, the worst case scenario here would be O(log n). In practice, this approach is best suited when there is a extremely nonuniform distribution.
Since excellent explanation is given, I'd just add visualizations taken from CLRS for further illustration:
Open Addressing:
Chaining:
Open addressing vs. separate chaining
Linear probing, double and random hashing are appropriate if the keys are kept as entries in the hashtable itself...
doing that is called "open addressing"
it is also called "closed hashing"
Another idea: Entries in the hashtable are just pointers to the head of a linked list (“chain”); elements of the linked list contain the keys...
this is called "separate chaining"
it is also called "open hashing"
Collision resolution becomes easy with separate chaining: just insert a key in its linked list if it is not already there
(It is possible to use fancier data structures than linked lists for this; but linked lists work very well in the average case, as we will see)
Let’s look at analyzing time costs of these strategies
Source: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~kube/cls/100/Lectures/lec16/lec16-25.html
If the number of items that will be inserted in a hash table isn’t known when the table is created, chained hash table is preferable to open addressing.
Increasing the load factor(number of items/table size) causes major performance penalties in open addressed hash tables, but performance degrades only linearly in chained hash tables.
If you are dealing with low memory and want to reduce memory usage, go for open addressing. If you are not worried about memory and want speed, go for chained hash tables.
When in doubt, use chained hash tables. Adding more data than you anticipated won’t cause performance to slow to a crawl.