I've noticed that it is very common (especially in interview questions and homework assignments) to implement a dynamic array; typically, I see the question phrased as something like:
Implement an array which doubles in capacity when full
Or something very similar. They almost always (in my experience) use the word double explicitly, rather than a more general
Implement an array which increases in capacity when full
My question is, why double? I understand why it would be a bad idea to use a constant value (thanks to this question) but it seems like it makes more sense to use a larger multiple than double; why not triple the capacity, or quadruple it, or square it?
To be clear, I'm not asking how to double the capacity of an array, I'm asking why doubling is the convention.
Yes, it is common practice.
Doubling is a good way to manage memory. Heap management algorithms are often based on the classic Buddy System, its an easy way to deal with addressing and coalescing and other challenges. Knowing this, it is good to stick with multiples of 2 when dealing with allocation (though there are hybrid algorithms, like slab allocator, to help with fragmentation, so it isn't so important as it once was to use the multiple).
Knuth covers it in one of his books that I have but forgot the title.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_memory_allocation
Another reason to double an array size is about the addition cost. You don't want each Add() operation to trigger a reallocation call. If you've filled N slots, there is a good chance you'll need some multiple of N anyway, history is a good indicator of future needs, so the object needs to "graduate" to the next arena size. By doubling, the frequency of reallocation falls off logarithmically (Log N). Doubling is just the most convenient multiple (being the smallest whole multiplier it is more memory efficient than 3*N or 4*N, plus it tends to follow heap memory management models closely).
The reason behind doubling is that it turns repeatedly appending an element into an amortized O(1) operation. Put another way, appending n elements takes O(n) time.
More accurately, increasing by any multiplicative factor achieves that, but doubling is a common choice. I've seen other choices, such as in increasing by a factor of 1.5.
I need to allocate memory of order of 10^15 to store integers which can be of long long type.
If i use an array and declare something like
long long a[1000000000000000];
that's never going to work. So how can i allocate such a huge amount of memory.
Really large arrays generally aren't a job for memory, more one for disk. 1015 array elements at 64 bits apiece is (I think) 8 petabytes. You can pick up 8G memory slices for about $15 at the moment so, even if your machine could handle that much memory or address space, you'd be outlaying about $15 million dollars.
In addition, with upcoming DDR4 being clocked up to about 4GT/s (giga-transfers), even if each transfer was a 64-bit value, it would still take about one million seconds just to initialise that array to zero. Do you really want to be waiting around for eleven and a half days before your code even starts doing anything useful?
And, even if you go the disk route, that's quite a bit. At (roughly) $50 per TB, you're still looking at $400,000 and you'll possibly have to provide your own software for managing those 8,000 disks somehow. And I'm not even going to contemplate figuring out how long it would take to initialise the array on disk.
You may want to think about rephrasing your question to indicate the actual problem rather than what you currently have, a proposed solution. It may be that you don't need that much storage at all.
For example, if you're talking about an array where many of the values are left at zero, a sparse array is one way to go.
You can't. You don't have all this memory, and you'll don't have it for a while. Simple.
EDIT: If you really want to work with data that does not fit into your RAM, you can use some library that work with mass storage data, like stxxl, but it will work a lot slower, and you have always disk size limits.
MPI is what you need, that's actually a small size for parallel computing problems the blue gene Q monster at Lawerence Livermore National Labs holds around 1.5 PB of ram. you need to use block decomposition to divide up your problem and viola!
the basic approach is dividing up the array into equal blocks or chunks among many processors
You need to uppgrade to a 64-bit system. Then get 64-bit-capable compiler then put a l at the end of 100000000000000000.
Have you heard of sparse matrix implementation? In one of the sparse matrices, you just use very little part of the matrix despite of the matrix being huge.
Here are some libraries for you.
Here is a basic info about sparse-matrices You dont actually use all of it. Just the needed few points.
I'm using using an array implementation of a stack, if the stack is full instead of throwing error I am doubling the array size, copying over the elements, changing stack reference and adding the new element to the stack. (I'm following a book to teach my self this stuff).
What I don't fully understand is why should I double it, why not increase it by a fixed amount, why not just increase it by 3 times.
I assume it has something to do with the time complexity or something?
A explanation would be greatly appreciated!
Doubling has just become the standard for generic implementations of things like array lists ("dynamically" sized arrays that really just do what you're doing in the background) and really most dynamically sized data types that are backed by arrays. If you knew your scenario and had the time and willpower to write a custom stack/array list implementation you could certainly write a more optimal solution.
If you knew in your software that items would be added incredibly infrequently after the initial array was built, you could initialise it with a specific size then only increase it by the size of what was being added to preserve memory.
On the other hand if you knew the list would be expanded very frequently, you might chose to increase the list size by 3 times or more when it runs out of space.
For a generic implementation that's part of a common library, your implementation specifics and requirements aren't known so doubling is just a happy medium.
In theory, you indeed arrive at different time complexities. If you increase by a constant size, you divide the number of re-allocations (and thus O(n) copies) by a constant, but you still get O(n) time complexity for appending. If you double them, you get a better time complexity for appending (armortized O(1) IIRC), and as you at most consume twice as much memory as needed, you still got the same space complexity.
In practice, it's less severe, but nevertheless viable. Copies are expensive, while a bit of memory usually doesn't hurt. It's a tradeoff, but you'd have to be quite low on memory to choose another strategy. Often, you don't know beforehand (or can't let the stack know due to API limits) how much space you'll actually need. For instance, if you build a 1024 element stack starting with one element, you get down to (I may be off by one) 10 re-allocations, from 1024/K -- assuming K=3, that would be roughly 34 times as many re-allocations, only to save a bit of memory.
The same holds for any other factor. 2 is nice because you never end up with non-integer sizes and it's still quite small, limiting the wasted space to 50%. Specific use cases may be better-served by other factors, but usually the ROI is too small to justify re-implementing and optimizing what's already available in some library.
The problem with a fixed amount is choosing that fixed amount - if you (say) choose 100 items as your fixed amount, that makes sense if your stack is currently ~100 items in size. However, if your stack is already 10,000 items in size, it's likely to grow to 11,000 items. You don't want to do 10 reallocations / moves to grow the size of your stack by 10%.
As for 2x versus 3x, that's pretty arbitrary - nothing wrong with choosing 3x; which is "better" will depend on your exact use case and how you define "better".
Scaling by 2x is easy, and will ensure that on average items get copied no more than twice [an expansion will copy half the items for the first time, a quarter for the second, an eighth for the third, etc.] If things instead grew by a fixed amount, then when e.g. the twentieth expansion was performed, half the items will be copied for the tenth time.
Growing by a factor of more than 2x will increase the average "permanent" slack space; growing by a smaller factor will increase the amount of storage that is allocated and abandoned. Depending upon the relative perceived "costs" of permanent and abandoned allocations, the optimal growth factor may be larger or smaller, but growth factors which are anywhere close to optimum will generally not perform too much worse than would optimum growth factors. Regardless of what the optimum growth factor would be, a growth factor of 2x will be close enough to yield decent performance.
I want to sort on the order of four million long longs in C. Normally I would just malloc() a buffer to use as an array and call qsort() but four million * 8 bytes is one huge chunk of contiguous memory.
What's the easiest way to do this? I rate ease over pure speed for this. I'd prefer not to use any libraries and the result will need to run on a modest netbook under both Windows and Linux.
Just allocate a buffer and call qsort. 32MB isn't so very big these days even on a modest netbook.
If you really must split it up: sort smaller chunks, write them to files, and merge them (a merge takes a single linear pass over each of the things being merged). But, really, don't. Just sort it.
(There's a good discussion of the sort-and-merge approach in volume 2 of Knuth, where it's called "external sorting". When Knuth was writing that, the external data would have been on magnetic tape, but the principles aren't very different with discs: you still want your I/O to be as sequential as possible. The tradeoffs are a bit different with SSDs.)
32 MB? thats not too big.... quicksort should do the trick.
Your best option would be to prevent having the data unordered if possible. Like it has been mentioned, you'd be better of reading the data from disk (or network or whatever the source) directly into a selforganizing container (a tree, perhaps std::set will do).
That way, you'll never have to sort through the lot, or have to worry about memory management. If you know the required capacity of the container, you might squeeze out additional performance by using std::vector(initialcapacity) or call vector::reserve up front.
You'd then best be advised to use std::make_heap to heapify any existing elements, and then add element by element using push_heap (see also pop_heap). This essentially is the same paradigm as the self-ordering set but
duplicates are ok
the storage is 'optimized' as a flat array (which is perfect for e.g. shared memory maps or memory mapped files)
(Oh, minor detail, note that sort_heap on the heap takes at most N log N comparisons, where N is the number of elements)
Let me know if you think this is an interesting approach. I'd really need a bit more info on the use case
C++ has std::vector and Java has ArrayList, and many other languages have their own form of dynamically allocated array. When a dynamic array runs out of space, it gets reallocated into a larger area and the old values are copied into the new array. A question central to the performance of such an array is how fast the array grows in size. If you always only grow large enough to fit the current push, you'll end up reallocating every time. So it makes sense to double the array size, or multiply it by say 1.5x.
Is there an ideal growth factor? 2x? 1.5x? By ideal I mean mathematically justified, best balancing performance and wasted memory. I realize that theoretically, given that your application could have any potential distribution of pushes that this is somewhat application dependent. But I'm curious to know if there's a value that's "usually" best, or is considered best within some rigorous constraint.
I've heard there's a paper on this somewhere, but I've been unable to find it.
I remember reading many years ago why 1.5 is preferred over two, at least as applied to C++ (this probably doesn't apply to managed languages, where the runtime system can relocate objects at will).
The reasoning is this:
Say you start with a 16-byte allocation.
When you need more, you allocate 32 bytes, then free up 16 bytes. This leaves a 16-byte hole in memory.
When you need more, you allocate 64 bytes, freeing up the 32 bytes. This leaves a 48-byte hole (if the 16 and 32 were adjacent).
When you need more, you allocate 128 bytes, freeing up the 64 bytes. This leaves a 112-byte hole (assuming all previous allocations are adjacent).
And so and and so forth.
The idea is that, with a 2x expansion, there is no point in time that the resulting hole is ever going to be large enough to reuse for the next allocation. Using a 1.5x allocation, we have this instead:
Start with 16 bytes.
When you need more, allocate 24 bytes, then free up the 16, leaving a 16-byte hole.
When you need more, allocate 36 bytes, then free up the 24, leaving a 40-byte hole.
When you need more, allocate 54 bytes, then free up the 36, leaving a 76-byte hole.
When you need more, allocate 81 bytes, then free up the 54, leaving a 130-byte hole.
When you need more, use 122 bytes (rounding up) from the 130-byte hole.
In the limit as n → ∞, it would be the golden ratio: ϕ = 1.618...
For finite n, you want something close, like 1.5.
The reason is that you want to be able to reuse older memory blocks, to take advantage of caching and avoid constantly making the OS give you more memory pages. The equation you'd solve to ensure that a subsequent allocation can re-use all prior blocks reduces to xn − 1 − 1 = xn + 1 − xn, whose solution approaches x = ϕ for large n. In practice n is finite and you'll want to be able to reusing the last few blocks every few allocations, and so 1.5 is great for ensuring that.
(See the link for a more detailed explanation.)
It will entirely depend on the use case. Do you care more about the time wasted copying data around (and reallocating arrays) or the extra memory? How long is the array going to last? If it's not going to be around for long, using a bigger buffer may well be a good idea - the penalty is short-lived. If it's going to hang around (e.g. in Java, going into older and older generations) that's obviously more of a penalty.
There's no such thing as an "ideal growth factor." It's not just theoretically application dependent, it's definitely application dependent.
2 is a pretty common growth factor - I'm pretty sure that's what ArrayList and List<T> in .NET uses. ArrayList<T> in Java uses 1.5.
EDIT: As Erich points out, Dictionary<,> in .NET uses "double the size then increase to the next prime number" so that hash values can be distributed reasonably between buckets. (I'm sure I've recently seen documentation suggesting that primes aren't actually that great for distributing hash buckets, but that's an argument for another answer.)
One approach when answering questions like this is to just "cheat" and look at what popular libraries do, under the assumption that a widely used library is, at the very least, not doing something horrible.
So just checking very quickly, Ruby (1.9.1-p129) appears to use 1.5x when appending to an array, and Python (2.6.2) uses 1.125x plus a constant (in Objects/listobject.c):
/* This over-allocates proportional to the list size, making room
* for additional growth. The over-allocation is mild, but is
* enough to give linear-time amortized behavior over a long
* sequence of appends() in the presence of a poorly-performing
* system realloc().
* The growth pattern is: 0, 4, 8, 16, 25, 35, 46, 58, 72, 88, ...
*/
new_allocated = (newsize >> 3) + (newsize < 9 ? 3 : 6);
/* check for integer overflow */
if (new_allocated > PY_SIZE_MAX - newsize) {
PyErr_NoMemory();
return -1;
} else {
new_allocated += newsize;
}
newsize above is the number of elements in the array. Note well that newsize is added to new_allocated, so the expression with the bitshifts and ternary operator is really just calculating the over-allocation.
Let's say you grow the array size by x. So assume you start with size T. The next time you grow the array its size will be T*x. Then it will be T*x^2 and so on.
If your goal is to be able to reuse the memory that has been created before, then you want to make sure the new memory you allocate is less than the sum of previous memory you deallocated. Therefore, we have this inequality:
T*x^n <= T + T*x + T*x^2 + ... + T*x^(n-2)
We can remove T from both sides. So we get this:
x^n <= 1 + x + x^2 + ... + x^(n-2)
Informally, what we say is that at nth allocation, we want our all previously deallocated memory to be greater than or equal to the memory need at the nth allocation so that we can reuse the previously deallocated memory.
For instance, if we want to be able to do this at the 3rd step (i.e., n=3), then we have
x^3 <= 1 + x
This equation is true for all x such that 0 < x <= 1.3 (roughly)
See what x we get for different n's below:
n maximum-x (roughly)
3 1.3
4 1.4
5 1.53
6 1.57
7 1.59
22 1.61
Note that the growing factor has to be less than 2 since x^n > x^(n-2) + ... + x^2 + x + 1 for all x>=2.
Another two cents
Most computers have virtual memory! In the physical memory you can have random pages everywhere which are displayed as a single contiguous space in your program's virtual memory. The resolving of the indirection is done by the hardware. Virtual memory exhaustion was a problem on 32 bit systems, but it is really not a problem anymore. So filling the hole is not a concern anymore (except special environments). Since Windows 7 even Microsoft supports 64 bit without extra effort. # 2011
O(1) is reached with any r > 1 factor. Same mathematical proof works not only for 2 as parameter.
r = 1.5 can be calculated with old*3/2 so there is no need for floating point operations. (I say /2 because compilers will replace it with bit shifting in the generated assembly code if they see fit.)
MSVC went for r = 1.5, so there is at least one major compiler that does not use 2 as ratio.
As mentioned by someone 2 feels better than 8. And also 2 feels better than 1.1.
My feeling is that 1.5 is a good default. Other than that it depends on the specific case.
The top-voted and the accepted answer are both good, but neither answer the part of the question asking for a "mathematically justified" "ideal growth rate", "best balancing performance and wasted memory". (The second-top-voted answer does try to answer this part of the question, but its reasoning is confused.)
The question perfectly identifies the 2 considerations that have to be balanced, performance and wasted memory. If you choose a growth rate too low, performance suffers because you'll run out of extra space too quickly and have to reallocate too frequently. If you choose a growth rate too high, like 2x, you'll waste memory because you'll never be able to reuse old memory blocks.
In particular, if you do the math1 you'll find that the upper limit on the growth rate is the golden ratio ϕ = 1.618… . Growth rate larger than ϕ (like 2x) mean that you'll never be able to reuse old memory blocks. Growth rates only slightly less than ϕ mean you won't be able to reuse old memory blocks until after many many reallocations, during which time you'll be wasting memory. So you want to be as far below ϕ as you can get without sacrificing too much performance.
Therefore I'd suggest these candidates for "mathematically justified" "ideal growth rate", "best balancing performance and wasted memory":
≈1.466x (the solution to x4=1+x+x2) allows memory reuse after just 3 reallocations, one sooner than 1.5x allows, while reallocating only slightly more frequently
≈1.534x (the solution to x5=1+x+x2+x3) allows memory reuse after 4 reallocations, same as 1.5x, while reallocating slightly less frequently for improved performance
≈1.570x (the solution to x6=1+x+x2+x3+x4) only allows memory reuse after 5 reallocations, but will reallocate even less infrequently for even further improved performance (barely)
Clearly there's some diminishing returns there, so I think the global optimum is probably among those. Also, note that 1.5x is a great approximation to whatever the global optimum actually is, and has the advantage being extremely simple.
1 Credits to #user541686 for this excellent source.
It really depends. Some people analyze common usage cases to find the optimal number.
I've seen 1.5x 2.0x phi x, and power of 2 used before.
If you have a distribution over array lengths, and you have a utility function that says how much you like wasting space vs. wasting time, then you can definitely choose an optimal resizing (and initial sizing) strategy.
The reason the simple constant multiple is used, is obviously so that each append has amortized constant time. But that doesn't mean you can't use a different (larger) ratio for small sizes.
In Scala, you can override loadFactor for the standard library hash tables with a function that looks at the current size. Oddly, the resizable arrays just double, which is what most people do in practice.
I don't know of any doubling (or 1.5*ing) arrays that actually catch out of memory errors and grow less in that case. It seems that if you had a huge single array, you'd want to do that.
I'd further add that if you're keeping the resizable arrays around long enough, and you favor space over time, it might make sense to dramatically overallocate (for most cases) initially and then reallocate to exactly the right size when you're done.
I recently was fascinated by the experimental data I've got on the wasted memory aspect of things. The chart below is showing the "overhead factor" calculated as the amount of overhead space divided by the useful space, the x-axis shows a growth factor. I'm yet to find a good explanation/model of what it reveals.
Simulation snippet: https://gist.github.com/gubenkoved/7cd3f0cb36da56c219ff049e4518a4bd.
Neither shape nor the absolute values that simulation reveals are something I've expected.
Higher-resolution chart showing dependency on the max useful data size is here: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ld2yJ.png.
UPDATE. After pondering this more, I've finally come up with the correct model to explain the simulation data, and hopefully, it matches experimental data nicely. The formula is quite easy to infer simply by looking at the size of the array that we would need to have for a given amount of elements we need to contain.
Referenced earlier GitHub gist was updated to include calculations using scipy.integrate for numerical integration that allows creating the plot below which verifies the experimental data pretty nicely.
UPDATE 2. One should however keep in mind that what we model/emulate there mostly has to do with the Virtual Memory, meaning the over-allocation overheads can be left entirely on the Virtual Memory territory as physical memory footprint is only incurred when we first access a page of Virtual Memory, so it's possible to malloc a big chunk of memory, but until we first access the pages all we do is reserving virtual address space. I've updated the GitHub gist with CPP program that has a very basic dynamic array implementation that allows changing the growth factor and the Python snippet that runs it multiple times to gather the "real" data. Please see the final graph below.
The conclusion there could be that for x64 environments where virtual address space is not a limiting factor there could be really little to no difference in terms of the Physical Memory footprint between different growth factors. Additionally, as far as Virtual Memory is concerned the model above seems to make pretty good predictions!
Simulation snippet was built with g++.exe simulator.cpp -o simulator.exe on Windows 10 (build 19043), g++ version is below.
g++.exe (x86_64-posix-seh-rev0, Built by MinGW-W64 project) 8.1.0
PS. Note that the end result is implementation-specific. Depending on implementation details dynamic array might or might not access the memory outside the "useful" boundaries. Some implementations would use memset to zero-initialize POD elements for whole capacity -- this will cause virtual memory page translated into physical. However, std::vector implementation on a referenced above compiler does not seem to do that and so behaves as per mock dynamic array in the snippet -- meaning overhead is incurred on the Virtual Memory side, and negligible on the Physical Memory.
I agree with Jon Skeet, even my theorycrafter friend insists that this can be proven to be O(1) when setting the factor to 2x.
The ratio between cpu time and memory is different on each machine, and so the factor will vary just as much. If you have a machine with gigabytes of ram, and a slow CPU, copying the elements to a new array is a lot more expensive than on a fast machine, which might in turn have less memory. It's a question that can be answered in theory, for a uniform computer, which in real scenarios doesnt help you at all.
I know it is an old question, but there are several things that everyone seems to be missing.
First, this is multiplication by 2: size << 1. This is multiplication by anything between 1 and 2: int(float(size) * x), where x is the number, the * is floating point math, and the processor has to run additional instructions for casting between float and int. In other words, at the machine level, doubling takes a single, very fast instruction to find the new size. Multiplying by something between 1 and 2 requires at least one instruction to cast size to a float, one instruction to multiply (which is float multiplication, so it probably takes at least twice as many cycles, if not 4 or even 8 times as many), and one instruction to cast back to int, and that assumes that your platform can perform float math on the general purpose registers, instead of requiring the use of special registers. In short, you should expect the math for each allocation to take at least 10 times as long as a simple left shift. If you are copying a lot of data during the reallocation though, this might not make much of a difference.
Second, and probably the big kicker: Everyone seems to assume that the memory that is being freed is both contiguous with itself, as well as contiguous with the newly allocated memory. Unless you are pre-allocating all of the memory yourself and then using it as a pool, this is almost certainly not the case. The OS might occasionally end up doing this, but most of the time, there is going to be enough free space fragmentation that any half decent memory management system will be able to find a small hole where your memory will just fit. Once you get to really bit chunks, you are more likely to end up with contiguous pieces, but by then, your allocations are big enough that you are not doing them frequently enough for it to matter anymore. In short, it is fun to imagine that using some ideal number will allow the most efficient use of free memory space, but in reality, it is not going to happen unless your program is running on bare metal (as in, there is no OS underneath it making all of the decisions).
My answer to the question? Nope, there is no ideal number. It is so application specific that no one really even tries. If your goal is ideal memory usage, you are pretty much out of luck. For performance, less frequent allocations are better, but if we went just with that, we could multiply by 4 or even 8! Of course, when Firefox jumps from using 1GB to 8GB in one shot, people are going to complain, so that does not even make sense. Here are some rules of thumb I would go by though:
If you cannot optimize memory usage, at least don't waste processor cycles. Multiplying by 2 is at least an order of magnitude faster than doing floating point math. It might not make a huge difference, but it will make some difference at least (especially early on, during the more frequent and smaller allocations).
Don't overthink it. If you just spent 4 hours trying to figure out how to do something that has already been done, you just wasted your time. Totally honestly, if there was a better option than *2, it would have been done in the C++ vector class (and many other places) decades ago.
Lastly, if you really want to optimize, don't sweat the small stuff. Now days, no one cares about 4KB of memory being wasted, unless they are working on embedded systems. When you get to 1GB of objects that are between 1MB and 10MB each, doubling is probably way too much (I mean, that is between 100 and 1,000 objects). If you can estimate expected expansion rate, you can level it out to a linear growth rate at a certain point. If you expect around 10 objects per minute, then growing at 5 to 10 object sizes per step (once every 30 seconds to a minute) is probably fine.
What it all comes down to is, don't over think it, optimize what you can, and customize to your application (and platform) if you must.