I was searching through the possible work arounds for doing Binary search in Erlang and I found http://ruslanspivak.com/2007/08/15/my-erlang-binary-search/ But I was wondering if the solution in blog runs in O(lg n). Now since the recurrence for Binary search is:T(n) = T(n/2) + c which gives me an execution time of O(lg n).
Since in a C array you have the power of accessing any element in O(1) time. But in erlang if accessing the middle of list takes cn time, then binary search runs in linear overall time as poor as linear search.
I came across lists:nth/2 BIF for finding the nth item in a list but I am not sure about its execution time.
Any comments ?
There are a few data structures that allow O(1) access in Erlang: ETS tables, tuples and binaries.
Now, none of them would really be appropriate for a binary search. The ETS table supports searching from the start, and otherwise, data is copied to your process when returning the result, which is likely not going to be optimal for your use case.
Tuples allow O(1) access with element/2, but modifying them has a certain overhead (which is why the array module uses trees of tuples).
Then you have binaries (<<1,2,3,4,5>>), which allow for something similar to pointer arithmetic, like in the following example:
1> Sorted = <<$a,$b,$c,$d,$e,$f,$g,$h>>.
<<"abcdefgh">>
2> <<_:3/binary, X:1/binary, _/binary>> = Sorted.
<<"abcdefgh">>
3> X.
<<"d">>
However, predicting the performance when building the binary is a bit sketchy, and this kind of pointer arithmetic is harder to do if your values have different types and different sizes when represented in a binary.
Your best bet would likely be to use a list of values, sort it, then use list_to_tuple/1 to navigate around it with element/2.
I would however strongly recommend using a tree to do your searching; it would likely be much much simpler to use the gb_tree module to build a balanced tree and still get O(log N) search.
nth is O(n). Use array module for constant access data structure (array as in C - almost).
Related
I have a function that predicts a words being typed and returns the possibilities in an array. Unfortunately those aren’t sorted by frequency used. So I have a list of 10K ordered words listed by most frequent to less frequent. What would be an efficient way to compare the words in the array and the ordered list to return the most frequent one? (i.e the one it encounters first?)
I was tipped off by a friend to use a binary search tree but I really don't see how that helps me. From what I understood from the following website, only numerical values can be used.. Am I wrong in thinking so? Is there a better way of doing the aforementioned task?
Thanks in advance
You could create a dictionary with words as keys and frequencies as values. Then iterate over your result array, use the dictionary to obtain the frequency value for each item, and predict the item with the highest frequency.
I wouldn't use a vanilla binary search tree here. It would be possible - as Taylor Kirkpatrick says, you could just create a tree with words as keys and frequencies and use that to find the frequency for each result word, in much the same way as the dictionary solution.
The problem is that you cannot guarantee that a simple binary tree will be balanced. From the sound of it your data would probably be OK, since your words are in frequency order. The worst case would be if the words were in alphabetic order - then your binary tree would end up being identical to a linked list - it would never branch, since every node would attach to the right of the previous one. So the computational complexity of a search would be the same as iterating over the array of words - O(n) instead of O(log2N) (which is the best case for binary trees).
Of course, you could guard against this by randomising the list of words before doing the insert. But to my mind it's just easier to use a dictionary. I don't know what the actual implementation of Swift dictionaries is (and we won't until they open source it in a couple of months), but you can take it as read that it will out perform a vanilla BT for value retrieval.
I don't know what the background to this problem is - if you are learning CS it might be worth implementing the BST just for intellectual growth - in this case, with only 10,000 items you might find the performance differences are ultimately quite small. But if you are a working programmer trying to solve a problem, go with the dictionary approach.
You put all your words into a dictionary or a set. That's it. Dictionary if you have data associated with the words, set if you have no data and just want to know if the word is in the list or not.
You might want to use a Trie.
Put your word list into it. For every character entered, you traverse the Trie as deeply as you can and then show all paths to leaf nodes as possible completions.
Since the world like you have is likely static, you can precompute the Trie and load from disk/network/whatever at startup if performance is a concern.
You can use a binary search tree with anything as the actual value. To actually make use of the tree, use the frequency of the words as the numerical value. This is actually a pretty good solution to your problem. Each node of the tree will contain this word and a numeric value that represents the frequency of the word.
Here are a few links to help you out with making it.
Hope that helps.
I need to maintain correspondence between strings and integers, then lookup the string value and return the integer. What's the best structure to store this info that meets the following requirements:
Speed and memory size are important, in that order.
I don't want to reinvent the wheel and write my own sorting routine. A call to Sort(CompareFunction) is fine of course.
Conditions:
The integers are not guaranteed to be sequential, neither is there a 'start value' like 0 or 1
Number of data pairs can vary from 100 to 100000
The data are all read in at the beginning, there's no subsequent additions/deletions/modifications
FWIW the strings are the hex entry ID's that Outlook (MAPI?) uses to identify entries. Example: 00000000FE42AA0A18C71A10E8850B651C24000003000000040000000000000018000000000000001E7FDF4152B0E944BA66DFBF2C6A6416E4F52000487F22
There's so many options (TStringList (with objects or name/value pairs), TObjectList, TDictionary, ...) that I'd better ask for advice first...
I have read How can I search faster for name/value pairs in a Delphi TStringList? which suggest TDictionary for string/string pairs, and Sorting multidimensional array in Delphi 2007 which suggest TStringlist objects for string/integer but where sorting is done on the integers.
The second link that you include in the question is not applicable. That is a question concerning sorting rather than efficient lookup. Although you discuss sorting a number of times in your question, you do not have a requirement to sort. Your requirement is simply a dictionary, also known as an associative array. Of course, you can implement that by sorting an array and using binary search for your lookup, but sorting is not a requirement. You simply need an efficient dictionary.
Out of the box, the most efficient and convenient data structure for your problem is TDictionary<string, Integer>. This has lookup complexity of O(1) and so scales well for large collections. For smaller collections a binary search based lookup with lookup complexity of O(log n) can be competitive and can indeed out-perform a dictionary.
Cosmin Prund wrote an excellent answer here on SO where he compared the performance of dictionary lookup against binary search based lookup. I recommend you have a read. I would say that for small containers, performance is probably not that big a problem for you. So even though binary search may be quicker, it probably does not matter because your performance is good either way. But performance probably becomes an issue for larger containers and that's where the dictionary is always stronger. For large enough containers, the performance of binary search may become unacceptable.
I'm sure that it is possible to produce more efficient implementations of dictionaries than the Embarcadero one, but I'd also say that the Embarcadero implementation is perfectly solid. It uses a decent hash function and does not have any glaring weaknesses.
In terms of memory complexity, there's little to choose between a dictionary and a sorted array. It's not possible to improve on a sorted array for memory use.
I suggest that you start with TDictionary<string, Integer> and only look beyond that if your performance requirements are not met.
It seems you are going to lookup long evenly distributed strings. One of the fastest data structures for this kind of problem is Trie.
But your dataset size is rather small, and ready-to-use Delphi solutions like THashedStringList or TDictionary (more convenient) would provide a fairly high speed.
With focus on read performance, I want to create a Term such as an Orddict or Proplist that contains a large number (100,000s) entries, each containing an ID and a Term value. This encapsulating Term should be able to return the a value stored under its key, just like an Orddict is able to do.
example:
K001 - Term001
K002 - Term002
K003 - Term003
The resulting Term containing the whole set needs to be passed from function to function, for several computing purposes without storing it on a persistence store to avoid disk I/O. I also chose not to use memory caching at this stage to avoid architectural complexity at this moment, therefore my focus is to have all of this to be simply key-searcheable.
Orddicts are key-sorted, which enhance the seek of a key, compared to a normal Dict. I am not aware of any other Erlang Module that can embed a more efficient indexing mechanism within its Term.
Any suggestions for an approach better than an Orddict ?
Actually, orddict is implemented as a sorted list (source), so it performs poorly both for insertion and lookup, especially when the keys are inserted in ascending order. Stay away from it; it won't work for your use case. dict is a hash-based data structure and offers solid insert/lookup performance. If the order of keys is important to you, consider using a tree-based map (such as gb_trees) as you can extract an ordered key sequence by taking the in-order tree walk.
If you want to share a large dataset between Erlang processes, you can try to use ETS.
It is fast in-memory key-value store, that only supports destructive updates.
Or phrased another way, what kind of benefits do you get from having a basic, singly linked list with only a head pointer? The benefits of a tail pointer that I can see are:
O(1) list concatenation
O(1) Appending stuff to the right side of the list
Both of which are rather convenient things to have, as opposed to O(n) list concatenation (where n is the length of the left-side list?). What advantages does dropping the tail pointer have?
F#, like many other functional[-ish] languages, has a cons-list (the terminology originally comes from LISP, but the concept is the same). In F# the :: operator (or List.Cons) is used for cons'ing: note the signature is ‘a –> ‘a list –> ‘a list (see Mastering F# Lists).
Do not confuse a cons-list with an opaque Linked List implementation which contains a discrete first[/last] node - every cell in a cons-list is the start of a [different] list! That is, a "list" is simply the chain of cells that starts at a given cons-cell.
This offers some advantages when used in a functional-like manner: one is that all the "tail" cells are shared and since each cons-cell is immutable (the "data" might be mutable, but that's a different issue) there is no way to make a change to a "tail" cell and flub up all the other lists which contain said cell.
Because of this property, [new] lists can be efficiently built - that is, they do not require a copy - simply by cons'ing to the front. In addition, it is also very efficient to deconstruct a list to head :: tail - once again, no copy - which is often very useful in recursive functions.
This immutable property generally does not exist in a [standard mutable] Double Linked List implementation in that appending would add side-effects: the internal 'last' node (the type is now opaque) and one of the "tail" cells are changed. (There are immutable sequence types that allow an "effectively constant time" append/update such as immutable.Vector in Scala -- however, these are heavy-weight objects compared to a cons-list that is nothing more than a series of cells cons'ed together.)
As mentioned, there are also disadvantages a cons-list is not appropriate for all tasks - in particular, creating a new list except by cons'ing to the head is an O(n) operation, fsvo n, and for better (or worse) the list is immutable.
I would recommend creating your own version of concat to see how this operation is really done. (The article Why I love F#: Lists - The Basics covers this.)
Happy coding.
Also see related post: Why can you only prepend to lists in functional languages?
F# lists are immutable, there's no such thing as "append/concat", rather there's just creating new lists (that may reuse some suffixes of old lists). Immutability has many advantages, outside the scope of this question. (All pure languages, and most functional languages have this data structure, it is not an F#-ism.)
See also
http://diditwith.net/2008/03/03/WhyILoveFListsTheBasics.aspx
which has good picture diagrams to explain things (e.g. why consing on the front is cheaper than at the end for an immutable list).
In addition to what the others said: if you need efficient, but yet immutable data structures (which should be an idiomatic F# way), you have to consider reading Chris Okasaki, Purely Functional Data Structures. There is also a thesis available (on which the book is based).
In addition to what has been already said, the Introducing Functional Programming section on MSDN has an article about Working with Functional Lists that explains how lists work and also implements them in C#, so it may be a good way to understand how they work (and why adding reference to the last element would not allow efficient implementation of append).
If you need to append things to the end of the list, as well as to the front, then you need a different data structure. For example, Norman Ramsey posted source code for DList which has these properties here (The implementation is not idiomatic F#, but it should be easy to fix).
If you find you want a list with better performance for append operations, have a look at the QueueList in the F# PowerPack and the JoinList in the FSharpx extension libraries.
QueueList encapsulates two lists. When you prepend using the cons, it prepends an element to the first list, just as a cons-list. However, if you want to append a single element, it can be pushed to the top of the second list. When the first list runs out of elements, List.rev is run on the second list, and the two are swapped putting your list back in order and freeing the second list to append new elements.
JoinList uses a discriminated union to more efficiently append whole lists and is a bit more involved.
Both are obviously less performant for standard cons-list operations but offer better performance for other scenarios.
You can read more about these structures in the article Refactoring Pattern Matching.
As others have pointed out, an F# list could be represented by a data structure:
List<T> { T Value; List<T> Tail; }
From here, the convention is that a list goes from the List you have a reference to until Tail is null. Based on that definition, the benefits/features/limitations in the other answers come naturally.
However, your original question seems to be why the list is not defined more like:
List<T> { Node<T> Head; Node<T> Tail; }
Node<T> { T Value; Node<T> Next; }
Such a structure would allow both appending and prepending to the list without any visible effects to the a reference to the original list, since it still only sees a "window" of the now expanded list. Although this would (sometimes) allow O(1) concatenation, there are several issues such a feature would face:
The concatenation only works once. This can lead to unexpected performance behavior where one concatenation is O(1), but the next is O(n). Say for example:
listA = makeList1 ()
listB = makeList2 ()
listC = makeList3 ()
listD = listA + listB //modified Node at tail of A for O(1)
listE = listA + listC //must now make copy of A to concat with C
You could argue that the time savings for the cases where possible are worth it, but the surprise of not knowing when it will be O(1) and when O(n) are strong arguments against the feature.
All lists now take up twice as much space, even if you never plan to concatenate them.
You now have a separate List and Node type. In the current implementation, I believe F# only uses a single type like the beginning of my answer. There may be a way to do what you are suggesting with only one type, but it is not obvious to me.
The concatenation requires mutating the original "tail" node instance. While this shouldn't affect programs, it is a point of mutation, which most functional languages tend to avoid.
Or phrased another way, what kind of benefits do you get from having a basic, singly linked list with only a head pointer? The benefits of a tail pointer that I can see are:
O(1) list concatenation
O(1) Appending stuff to the right side of the list
Both of which are rather convenient things to have, as opposed to O(n) list concatenation (where n is the length of the left-side list?).
If by "tail pointer" you mean a pointer from every list to the last element in the list, that alone cannot be used to provide either of the benefits you cite. Although you could then get at the last element in the list quickly, you cannot do anything with it because it is immutable.
You could write a mutable doubly-linked list as you say but the mutability would make programs using it significantly harder to reason about because every function you call with one might change it.
As Brian said, there are purely functional catenable lists. However, they are many times slower at common operations than the simple singly-linked list that F# uses.
What advantages does dropping the tail pointer have?
30% less space usage and better performance on virtually all list operations.
I'm trying to learn how to think in a functional programming way, for this, I'm trying to learn Erlang and solving easy problems from codingbat. I came with the common problem of comparing elements inside a list. For example, compare a value of the i-th position element with the value of the i+1-th position of the list. So, I have been thinking and searching how to do this in a functional way in Erlang (or any functional language).
Please, be gentle with me, I'm very newb in this functional world, but I want to learn
Thanks in advance
Define a list:
L = [1,2,3,4,4,5,6]
Define a function f, which takes a list
If it matches a list of one element or an empty list, return the empty list
If it matches the first element and the second element then take the first element and construct a new list by calling the rest of the list recursivly
Otherwise skip the first element of the list.
In Erlang code
f ([]) -> [];
f ([_]) -> [];
f ([X, X|Rest]) -> [X | f(Rest)];
f ([_|Rest]) -> f(Rest).
Apply function
f(L)
This should work... haven't compiled and run it but it should get you started. Also in case you need to do modifications to it to behave differently.
Welcome to Erlang ;)
I try to be gentle ;-) So main thing in functional approach is thinking in terms: What is input? What should be output? There is nothing like comparing the i-th element with the i+1-th element alone. There have to be always purpose of it which will lead to data transformation. Even Mazen Harake's example doing it. In this example there is function which returns only elements which are followed by same value i.e. filters given list. Typically there are very different ways how do similar thing which depends of purpose of it. List is basic functional structure and you can do amazing things with it as Lisp shows us but you have to remember it is not array.
Each time you need access i-th element repeatable it indicates you are using wrong data structure. You can build up different data structures form lists and tuples in Erlang which can serve your purposes better. So when you face problem to compare i-th with i+1-th element you should stop and think. What is purpose of it? Do you need perform some stream data transformation as Mazen Harake does or You need random access? If second you should use different data structure (array for example). Even then you should think about your task characteristics. If you will be mostly read and almost never write then you can use list_to_tuple(L) and then read using element/2. When you need write occasionally you will start thinking about partition it to several tuples and as your write ratio will grow you will end up with array implementation.
So you can use lists:nth/2 if you will do it only once or several times but on short list and you are not performance freak as I'm. You can improve it using [X1,X2|_] = lists:nthtail(I-1, L) (L = lists:nthtail(0,L) works as expected). If you are facing bigger lists and you want call it many times you have to rethink your approach.
P.S.: There are many other fascinating data structures except lists and trees. Zippers for example.