I have a list of n strings (names of people) that I want to store in a hash table or similar structure. I know the exact value of n, so I want to use that fact to have O(1) lookups, which would be rendered impossible if I had to use a linked list to store my hash nodes. My first reaction was to use the the djb hash, which essentially does this:
for ( i = 0; i < len; i++ )
h = 33 * h + p[i];
To compress the resulting h into the range [0,n], I would like to simply do h%n, but I suspect that this will lead to a much higher probability of clashes in a way that would essentially render my hash useless.
My question then, is how can I hash either the string or the resulting hash so that the n elements provide a relatively uniform distribution over [0,n]?
It's not enough to know n. Allocation of an item to a bucket is a function of the item itself so, if you want a perfect hash function (one item per bucket), you need to know the data.
In any case, if you're limiting the number of elements to a known n, you're already technically O(1) lookup. The upper bound will be based on the constant n. This would be true even for a non-hash solution.
Your best bet is to probably just use the hash function you have and have each bucket be a linked list of the colliding items. Even if the hash is less than perfect, you're still greatly minimising the time taken.
Only if the hash is totally imperfect (all n elements placed in one bucket) will it be as bad as a normal linked list.
If you don't know the data in advance, a perfect hash is not possible. Unless, of course, you use h itself as the hash key rather than h%n but that's going to take an awful lot of storage :-)
My advice is to go the good-enough hash with linked list route. I don't doubt that you could make a better hash function based on the relative frequencies of letters in people's names across the population but even the hash you have (which is ideal for all letters having the same frequency) should be adequate.
And, anyway, if you start relying on frequencies and you get an influx of people from those countries that don't seem to use vowels (a la Bosniaa), you'll end up with more collisions.
But keep in mind that it really depends on the n that you're using.
If n is small enough, you could even get away with a sequential search of an unsorted array. I'm assuming your n is large enough here that you've already established that (or a balanced binary tree) won't give you enough performance.
A case in point: we have some code which searches through problem dockets looking for names of people that left comments (so we can establish the last member on our team who responded). There's only ever about ten or so members in our team so we just use a sequential search for them - the performance improvement from using a faster data structure was deemed too much trouble.
aNo offence intended. I just remember the humorous article a long time ago about Clinton authorising the airlifting of vowels to Bosnia. I'm sure there are other countries with a similar "problem".
What you're after is called a Perfect Hash. It's a hash function where all the keys are known ahead of time, designed so that there are no collisions.
The gperf program generates C code for perfect hashes.
It sounds like you're looking for an implementation of a perfect hash function, or perhaps even a minimal perfect hash function. According to the Wikipedia page, CMPH might
fit your needs. Disclaimer: I've never used it.
The optimal algorithm for mapping n strings to integers 1-n is to build a DFA where the terminating states are the integers 1-n. (I'm sure someone here will step up with a fancy name for this...but in the end it's all DFA.) Size/speed tradeoff can be adjusted by varying your alphabet size (operating on bytes, half-bytes, or even bits).
Related
What is the best algorithm for detecting duplicate numbers in array, the best in speed, memory and avoiving overhead.
Small Array like [5,9,13,3,2,5,6,7,1] Note that 5 i dublicate.
After searching and reading about sorting algorithms, I realized that I will use one of these algorithms, Quick Sort, Insertion Sort or Merge Sort.
But actually I am really confused about what to use in my case which is a small array.
Thanks in advance.
To be honest, with that size of array, you may as well choose the O(n2) solution (checking every element against every other element).
You'll generally only need to worry about performance if/when the array gets larger. For small data sets like this, you could well have found the duplicate with an 'inefficient' solution before the sort phase of an efficient solution will have finished :-)
In other words, you can use something like (pseudo-code):
for idx1 = 0 to nums.len - 2 inclusive:
for idx2 = idx1 + 1 to nums.len - 1 inclusive:
if nums[idx1] == nums[idx2]:
return nums[idx1]
return no dups found
This finds the first value in the array which has a duplicate.
If you want an exhaustive list of duplicates, then just add the duplicate value to another (initially empty) array (once only per value) and keep going.
You can sort it using any half-decent algorithm though, for a data set of the size you're discussing, even a bubble sort would probably be adequate. Then you just process the sorted items sequentially, looking for runs of values but it's probably overkill in your case.
Two good approaches depend on the fact that you know or not the range from which numbers are picked up.
Case 1: the range is known.
Suppose you know that all numbers are in the range [a, b[, thus the length of the range is l=b-a.
You can create an array A the length of which is l and fill it with 0s, thus iterate over the original array and for each element e increment the value of A[e-a] (here we are actually mapping the range in [0,l[).
Once finished, you can iterate over A and find the duplicate numbers. In fact, if there exists i such that A[i] is greater than 1, it implies that i+a is a repeated number.
The same idea is behind counting sort, and it works fine also for your problem.
Case 2: the range is not known.
Quite simple. Slightly modify the approach above mentioned, instead of an array use a map where the keys are the number from your original array and the values are the times you find them. At the end, iterate over the set of keys and search those that have been found more then once.
Note.
In both the cases above mentioned, the complexity should be O(N) and you cannot do better, for you have at least to visit all the stored values.
Look at the first example: we iterate over two arrays, the lengths of which are N and l<=N, thus the complexity is at max 2*N, that is O(N).
The second example is indeed a bit more complex and dependent on the implementation of the map, but for the sake of simplicity we can safely assume that it is O(N).
In memory, you are constructing data structures the sizes of which are proportional to the number of different values contained in the original array.
As it usually happens, memory occupancy and performance are the keys of your choice. Greater the former, better the latter and vice versa. As suggested in another response, if you know that the array is small, you can safely rely on an algorithm the complexity of which is O(N^2), but that does not require memory at all.
Which is the best choice? Well, it depends on your problem, we cannot say.
I have a requirement to do a lookup based on a large number. The number could fall in the range 1 - 2^32. Based on the input, i need to return some other data structure. My question is that what data structure should i use to effectively hold this?
I would have used an array giving me O(1) lookup if the numbers were in the range say, 1 to 5000. But when my input number goes large, it becomes unrealistic to use an array as the memory requirements would be huge.
I am hence trying to look at a data structure that yields the result fast and is not very heavy.
Any clues anybody?
EDIT:
It would not make sense to use an array since i may have only 100 or 200 indices to store.
Abhishek
unordered_map or map, depending on what version of C++ you are using.
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/unordered_map/unordered_map/
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/map/map/
A simple solution in C, given you've stated at most 200 elements is just an array of structs with an index and a data pointer (or two arrays, one of indices and one of data pointers, where index[i] corresponds to data[i]). Linearly search the array looking for the index you want. With a small number of elements, (200), that will be very fast.
One possibility is a Judy Array, which is a sparse associative array. There is a C Implementation available. I don't have any direct experience of these, although they look interesting and could be worth experimenting with if you have the time.
Another (probably more orthodox) choice is a hash table. Hash tables are data structures which map keys to values, and provide fast lookup and insertion times (provided a good hash function is chosen). One thing they do not provide, however, is ordered traversal.
There are many C implementations. A quick Google search turned up uthash which appears to be suitable, particularly because it allows you to use any value type as the key (many implementations assume a string as the key). In your case you want to use an integer as the key.
I have two unsorted arrays of 32-bit unsigned integers, size N1 and N2, respectively. Each array may contain duplicates. I would like to map each value (2^32 possible keys) to a spot in a byte-array of size (N1 + N2) to record frequencies of each key. Duplicate key values should map to the same position in this array. Additionally, the frequency of each integer won't go above 100 (which is why I chose a byte-array to record each key's frequency to save space); if the max possible frequency were to go above this, I would simply change the byte-array to an array of shorts or something.
In the end, I need an array of size N1 + N2 -- not necessarily all entries will be used, as duplicates may have been encountered -- with frequencies of each unique key value. Worst case scenario, only one byte entry will be used (e.g. all values in both arrays are the same) leaving ((N1 + N2) - 1) entries unused. Best case scenario, all byte-entries are used.
From what I understand, I need to find a minimally perfect hashing function to map a known number of unknown keys (N1 + N2; all ranging from 0 - 2^32) to a known number of spots (N1 + N2). I was able to find a few other posts, but both answers basically said use gperf:
Is it possible to make a minimal perfect hash function in this situation?
Minimal perfect hash function
The second one (Minimal perfect hash function) is exactly what I'm attempting to do.
Rather than expecting source code from an answer (I'm using C by the way), I'd much prefer an explanation of how to go about creating a minimally perfect hashing function for N-number of any possible positive integers to N buckets. I could easily do this with a 4 GB array of direct mappings for every possible integer with lots of unused space, but I'd rather try to reduce this massive inefficiency of space. I'm also hoping to not use any external libraries, mostly for educational purposes to learn more about hashing, itself.
This is clearly impossible. If you have N numbers, there's no way to come up with a function which will hash them all to distinct values in the range [0, N) unless you know what those numbers are going to be beforehand. Otherwise, given any such function (with N < 2^32, of course), there will be at least one pair of integers such that both of those integers hash to the same value, so that function won't be perfect if those integers both show up in the input.
If you relax the conditions to allow the function to be created on the fly, this becomes possible, but only in a really trivial and useless way. Namely, a hash function could build itself up as it goes by recording each number that's fed into it and generating a new unique output for each one (say, counting up from 0). But such a function would need a hash table (or something equivalent) as part of its implementation, so it'd certainly be no use in implementing a hash table!
According to the Pigeonhole Principle, you will have "hash slots" occupied by more than one number. In other words: different numbers will "hash" to the same value.
Now, I wonder if you could benefit from a Bloom Filter. From Wikipedia:
False positive matches are possible, but false negatives are not; i.e.
a query returns either "possibly in set" or "definitely not in set".
If something is "definitely" not in the set of keys, you can move on (its frequency is one), and if it possibly is in the set, then you process it further to accumulate its actual statistic.
I had an interview today, I was asked how search for a number inside an array, I said binarysearch, he asked me how about a big array that has thousands of bjects (for example Stocks) searching for example by price of the stocks, I said binarysearch again, he said sorting an array of thousands will take lot of time before applying binarysearch.
Can you please bear with me and teach me how to approach this problem ?
thanks
your help is appreciated.
I was asked a similar question.The twist was to search in sorted and then an unsorted array .These were my answers all unaccepted
For sorted I suggested we can find the center and do a linear search .Binary search will also work here
For unsorted I suggested linear again .
Then I suggested Binary which is kind of wrong.
Suggested storing the array in a hashset and utilize hashing . (Not accepted since high space complexcity)
I suggested Tree Set which is a Red Black tree quite good for lookup.(Not accepted since high space complexcity)
Copying into Arraylist etch were also considered overhead.
In the end I got a negative feedback.
Though we may think that one of the above is solution but surely there is something special in linear searching which I am missing.
To be noted sorting before searching is also an overhead especially if you are utilizing any extra data structures in between.
Any comments welcomed.
I am not sure what he had in mind.
If you just want to find the number one time, and you have no guarantees about whether the array is sorted, then I don't think you can beat linear search. On average you will need to seek halfway through the array before you find the value, i.e. expected running time O(N); when sorting you have to touch every single value at least once and probably more than that, i.e. expected running time O(N log N).
But if you need to find multiple values then the time spent sorting it pays off quickly. With a sorted array, you can binary search in O(log N) time, so for sure by the third search you are ahead if you invested the time to sort.
You can do even better if you are allowed to build different data structures to help with the problem. You could build some sort of index, such as a hash table; but the champion data structure for this sort of problem probably would be some sort of tree structure. Then you can insert new values into the tree faster than you could append new values and re-sort the array, and the lookup is still going to be O(log N) to find any value. There are different sorts of trees available: binary tree, B-tree, trie, etc.
But as #Hot Licks said, a hash table is often used for this sort of thing, and it's pretty cheap to update: you just append a value on the main array, and update the hash table to point to the new value. And a hash table is very close to O(1) time, which you can't beat. (A hash table is O(1) if there are no hash collisions; assuming a good hash algorithm and a big enough hash table there will be almost no collisions. I think you could say that a hash table is O(N) where N is the average number of hash collisions per "bucket". If I'm wrong about that I expect to be corrected very quickly; this is StackOverflow!)
I think the interviewer wants you to analyze under different case about the array initial state, what algorithm will you use. Of cause , you must know you can build a hash table and then O(1) can find the number, or when the array is sorted (time spent on sorting maybe concerned) , you can use binarysearch, or use some other data structures to finish the job.
In a C99+SDL game, I have an array that contains sound effects (SDL_mixer chunk data and some extra flags and filename string) and is referenced by index such as "sounds[2].data".
I'd like to be able to call sounds by filename, but I don't want to strcmp all the array until a match is found. This way as I add more sounds, or change the order, or allow for player-defined sound mods, they can still be called with a common identifier (such as "SHOT01" or "EXPL04").
What would be the fastest approach for this? I heard about hashing, which would result in something similar to lua's string indexes (such as table["field"]) but I don't know anything about the topic, and seems fairly complicated.
Just in case it matters, I plan to have filenames or labels be from 6 to 8 all caps filenames (such as "SHOT01.wav").
So to summarize, where can I learn about hashing short strings like that, or what would be the fastest way to keep track of something like sound effects so they can be called using arbitrary labels or identifiers?
I think in your case you can probably just keep all the sounds in a sorted data structure and use a fast search algorithm to find matches. Something like a binary search is very simple implement and it gives good performance.
However, if you are interested in hash tables and hashing, the basics of it all are pretty simple. There is no place like Wikipedia to get the basics down and you can then tailor your searches better on Google to find more in depth articles.
The basics are you start out with a fixed size array and store everything in there. To figure out where to store something you take the key (in your case the sound name) and you perform some operation on it such that it gives you an exact location where the value can be found. So the simplest case for string hashing is just adding up all the letters in the string as integer values then take the value and use modulus to give you an index in your array.
position = SUM(string letters) % [array size]
Of course naturally multiple strings will have same sum and thus give you the same position. This is called a collision, and collisions can be handled in many ways. The simplest way is to have an array of lists rather than array of values, and simply append to the list every there there is a collision. When searching for a value, simply iterate the lists and find the value you need.
Ideally a good hashing algorithm will have few collisions and quick hashing algorithm thus providing huge performance boost.
I hope this helps :)
You are right, when it comes to mapping objects with a set of string keys, hash tables are often the way to go.
I think this article on wikipedia is a good starting point to understand hash table mechanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table