Does anyone know the original hash table implementation?
Every realization I've found is based on separate chaining or open addressing methods
Chaining, by Hans Peter Luhn, in 1953.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table#History
The first implementation, not that the most common, is probably the one that uses an array (which is resized as needed) where each entry points to a list of elements.
The hash code, computed mod the size of the array, points to the integer index at which the list of the element to be searched is located. In case of hash code collision, the elements will accumulate in the list of the related entry.
So, once the hash code is computed, we have O(1) for accessing the entry of the array and O(N) for the actual search of the element in the list by verifying its actual equality. The value of N must be kept low for obvious performance consequences.
In case the collision becomes high we resize the array by increasing the number of entries and decreasing the collisions accordingly. This occurs as the hash code mod a higher number than the previous one is computed.
Some more complicated implementations convert the lists to trees if they become too long so that O(N) to O(log(N)) for equality search.
Google guava has an implementation of the classic bloom filter. Creating one involves specifying number of insertions and false positive probability expected. I want to know whether the putAll function provided can be used to create a new filter allowing a larger number of insertions than that of the bloom filter argument passed to it while retaining same fpp.
No. It will not.
As per the javadoc the putAll function throws an exception when the filters are not compatible. Two bloom filter are compatible if they have the same number of hash functions; have the same bit size; have the same strategy and; have equal funnels.
The number of hash functions and bitsize are derived from the number of insertions and fpp rate. Creating a new bloom filter with the same fpp and a larger number of insertion will result in different bitsize and number of hash functions.
my question is, if we use k (number of hash functions) as n (the number of elements to be inserted), I saw that the probability of getting false positive is extremely low. I realize this is really slow..is this the worst case? And will this ensure that a false positive is never made?
No, you can never ensure that a Bloom filter has no false positives by changing the number of hash functions. The optimal number of hash functions is linear in the ratio of the space to the cardinality, so your choice will be quite far from optimal unless you use so much space that you might as well store the set directly, avoiding the Bloom filter altogether.
This last part is not true if your objects are truly enormous or you have a tiny number of them.
We are looking for the computationally simplest function that will enable an indexed look-up of a function to be determined by a high frequency input stream of widely distributed integers and ranges of integers.
It is OK if the hash/map function selection itself varies based on the specific integer and range requirements, and the performance associated with the part of the code that selects this algorithm is not critical. The number of integers/ranges of interest in most cases will be small (zero to a few thousand). The performance critical portion is in processing the incoming stream and selecting the appropriate function.
As a simple example, please consider the following pseudo-code:
switch (highFrequencyIntegerStream)
case(2) : func1();
case(3) : func2();
case(8) : func3();
case(33-122) : func4();
...
case(10,000) : func40();
In a typical example, there would be only a few thousand of the "cases" shown above, which could include a full range of 32-bit integer values and ranges. (In the pseudo code above 33-122 represents all integers from 33 to 122.) There will be a large number of objects containing these "switch statements."
(Note that the actual implementation will not include switch statements. It will instead be a jump table (which is an array of function pointers) or maybe a combination of the Command and Observer patterns, etc. The implementation details are tangential to the request, but provided to help with visualization.)
Many of the objects will contain "switch statements" with only a few entries. The values of interest are subject to real time change, but performance associated with managing these changes is not critical. Hash/map algorithms can be re-generated slowly with each update based on the specific integers and ranges of interest (for a given object at a given time).
We have searched around the internet, looking at Bloom filters, various hash functions listed on Wikipedia's "hash function" page and elsewhere, quite a few Stack Overflow questions, abstract algebra (mostly Galois theory which is attractive for its computationally simple operands), various ciphers, etc., but have not found a solution that appears to be targeted to this problem. (We could not even find a hash or map function that considered these types of ranges as inputs, much less a highly efficient one. Perhaps we are not looking in the right places or using the correct vernacular.)
The current plan is to create a custom algorithm that preprocesses the list of interesting integers and ranges (for a given object at a given time) looking for shifts and masks that can be applied to input stream to help delineate the ranges. Note that most of the incoming integers will be uninteresting, and it is of critical importance to make a very quick decision for as large a percentage of that portion of the stream as possible (which is why Bloom filters looked interesting at first (before we starting thinking that their implementation required more computational complexity than other solutions)).
Because the first decision is so important, we are also considering having multiple tables, the first of which would be inverse masks (masks to select uninteresting numbers) for the easy to find large ranges of data not included in a given "switch statement", to be followed by subsequent tables that would expand the smaller ranges. We are thinking this will, for most cases of input streams, yield something quite a bit faster than a binary search on the bounds of the ranges.
Note that the input stream can be considered to be randomly distributed.
There is a pretty extensive theory of minimal perfect hash functions that I think will meet your requirement. The idea of a minimal perfect hash is that a set of distinct inputs is mapped to a dense set of integers in 1-1 fashion. In your case a set of N 32-bit integers and ranges would each be mapped to a unique integer in a range of size a small multiple of N. Gnu has a perfect hash function generator called gperf that is meant for strings but might possibly work on your data. I'd definitely give it a try. Just add a length byte so that integers are 5 byte strings and ranges are 9 bytes. There are some formal references on the Wikipedia page. A literature search in ACM and IEEE literature will certainly turn up more.
I just ran across this library I had not seen before.
Addition
I see now that you are trying to map all integers in the ranges to the same function value. As I said in the comment, this is not very compatible with hashing because hash functions deliberately try to "erase" the magnitude information in a bit's position so that values with similar magnitude are unlikely to map to the same hash value.
Consequently, I think that you will not do better than an optimal binary search tree, or equivalently a code generator that produces an optimal "tree" of "if else" statements.
If we wanted to construct a function of the type you are asking for, we could try using real numbers where individual domain values map to consecutive integers in the co-domain and ranges map to unit intervals in the co-domain. So a simple floor operation will give you the jump table indices you're looking for.
In the example you provided you'd have the following mapping:
2 -> 0.0
3 -> 1.0
8 -> 2.0
33 -> 3.0
122 -> 3.99999
...
10000 -> 42.0 (for example)
The trick is to find a monotonically increasing polynomial that interpolates these points. This is certainly possible, but with thousands of points I'm certain you'ed end up with something much slower to evaluate than the optimal search would be.
Perhaps our thoughts on hashing integers can help a little bit. You will also find there a hashing library (hashlib.zip) based on Bob Jenkins' work which deals with integer numbers in a smart way.
I would propose to deal with larger ranges after the single cases have been rejected by the hashing mechanism.
It seems that Vector was late to the Scala collections party, and all the influential blog posts had already left.
In Java ArrayList is the default collection - I might use LinkedList but only when I've thought through an algorithm and care enough to optimise. In Scala should I be using Vector as my default Seq, or trying to work out when List is actually more appropriate?
As a general rule, default to using Vector. It’s faster than List for almost everything and more memory-efficient for larger-than-trivial sized sequences. See this documentation of the relative performance of Vector compared to the other collections. There are some downsides to going with Vector. Specifically:
Updates at the head are slower than List (though not by as much as you might think)
Another downside before Scala 2.10 was that pattern matching support was better for List, but this was rectified in 2.10 with generalized +: and :+ extractors.
There is also a more abstract, algebraic way of approaching this question: what sort of sequence do you conceptually have? Also, what are you conceptually doing with it? If I see a function that returns an Option[A], I know that function has some holes in its domain (and is thus partial). We can apply this same logic to collections.
If I have a sequence of type List[A], I am effectively asserting two things. First, my algorithm (and data) is entirely stack-structured. Second, I am asserting that the only things I’m going to do with this collection are full, O(n) traversals. These two really go hand-in-hand. Conversely, if I have something of type Vector[A], the only thing I am asserting is that my data has a well defined order and a finite length. Thus, the assertions are weaker with Vector, and this leads to its greater flexibility.
Well, a List can be incredibly fast if the algorithm can be implemented solely with ::, head and tail. I had an object lesson of that very recently, when I beat Java's split by generating a List instead of an Array, and couldn't beat that with anything else.
However, List has a fundamental problem: it doesn't work with parallel algorithms. I cannot split a List into multiple segments, or concatenate it back, in an efficient manner.
There are other kinds of collections that can handle parallelism much better -- and Vector is one of them. Vector also has great locality -- which List doesn't -- which can be a real plus for some algorithms.
So, all things considered, Vector is the best choice unless you have specific considerations that make one of the other collections preferable -- for example, you might choose Stream if you want lazy evaluation and caching (Iterator is faster but doesn't cache), or List if the algorithm is naturally implemented with the operations I mentioned.
By the way, it is preferable to use Seq or IndexedSeq unless you want a specific piece of API (such as List's ::), or even GenSeq or GenIndexedSeq if your algorithm can be run in parallel.
Some of the statements here are confusing or even wrong, especially the idea that immutable.Vector in Scala is anything like an ArrayList.
List and Vector are both immutable, persistent (i.e. "cheap to get a modified copy") data structures.
There is no reasonable default choice as their might be for mutable data structures, but it rather depends on what your algorithm is doing.
List is a singly linked list, while Vector is a base-32 integer trie, i.e. it is a kind of search tree with nodes of degree 32.
Using this structure, Vector can provide most common operations reasonably fast, i.e. in O(log_32(n)). That works for prepend, append, update, random access, decomposition in head/tail. Iteration in sequential order is linear.
List on the other hand just provides linear iteration and constant time prepend, decomposition in head/tail. Everything else takes in general linear time.
This might look like as if Vector was a good replacement for List in almost all cases, but prepend, decomposition and iteration are often the crucial operations on sequences in a functional program, and the constants of these operations are (much) higher for vector due to its more complicated structure.
I made a few measurements, so iteration is about twice as fast for list, prepend is about 100 times faster on lists, decomposition in head/tail is about 10 times faster on lists and generation from a traversable is about 2 times faster for vectors. (This is probably, because Vector can allocate arrays of 32 elements at once when you build it up using a builder instead of prepending or appending elements one by one).
Of course all operations that take linear time on lists but effectively constant time on vectors (as random access or append) will be prohibitively slow on large lists.
So which data structure should we use?
Basically, there are four common cases:
We only need to transform sequences by operations like map, filter, fold etc:
basically it does not matter, we should program our algorithm generically and might even benefit from accepting parallel sequences. For sequential operations List is probably a bit faster. But you should benchmark it if you have to optimize.
We need a lot of random access and different updates, so we should use vector, list will be prohibitively slow.
We operate on lists in a classical functional way, building them by prepending and iterating by recursive decomposition: use list, vector will be slower by a factor 10-100 or more.
We have an performance critical algorithm that is basically imperative and does a lot of random access on a list, something like in place quick-sort: use an imperative data structure, e.g. ArrayBuffer, locally and copy your data from and to it.
For immutable collections, if you want a sequence, your main decision is whether to use an IndexedSeq or a LinearSeq, which give different guarantees for performance. An IndexedSeq provides fast random-access of elements and a fast length operation. A LinearSeq provides fast access only to the first element via head, but also has a fast tail operation. (Taken from the Seq documentation.)
For an IndexedSeq you would normally choose a Vector. Ranges and WrappedStrings are also IndexedSeqs.
For a LinearSeq you would normally choose a List or its lazy equivalent Stream. Other examples are Queues and Stacks.
So in Java terms, ArrayList used similarly to Scala's Vector, and LinkedList similarly to Scala's List. But in Scala I would tend to use List more often than Vector, because Scala has much better support for functions that include traversal of the sequence, like mapping, folding, iterating etc. You will tend to use these functions to manipulate the list as a whole, rather than randomly accessing individual elements.
In situations which involve a lot random access and random mutation, a Vector (or – as the docs say – a Seq) seems to be a good compromise. This is also what the performance characteristics suggest.
Also, the Vector class seems to play nicely in distributed environments without much data duplication because there is no need to do a copy-on-write for the complete object. (See: http://akka.io/docs/akka/1.1.3/scala/stm.html#persistent-datastructures)
If you're programming immutably and need random access, Seq is the way to go (unless you want a Set, which you often actually do). Otherwise List works well, except it's operations can't be parallelized.
If you don't need immutable data structures, stick with ArrayBuffer since it's the Scala equivalent to ArrayList.