Faster datastructure for lookups wanted

[m94asr]

Hi all,

maybe somebody can recommend me the right datastructure or
any other advice would be a big help.

My code spends most of its execution time doing lookups from
a hashtable with about 1M keys. The keys are strings and the values
are arrays of integers. Most of the time only of length 1.

I do not care how long the construction of the datastructure takes,
but the lookup should be as fast as possible.

xs.each{|x|
if found = hash[x]
#do sth.
end
}


Thanks a lot!
-Armin

 

[Mauricio Fernandez]

maybe somebody can recommend me the right datastructure or
any other advice would be a big help.

My code spends most of its execution time doing lookups from
a hashtable with about 1M keys. The keys are strings and the values
are arrays of integers. Most of the time only of length 1.

I do not care how long the construction of the datastructure takes,
but the lookup should be as fast as possible.

It hardly gets faster than a Hash in Ruby.
You can also try a trie (Patricia tree if you have long keys and care about
space), or Judy arrays (http://rjudy.sourceforge.net), but I wouldn't expect
major performance gains (Judy::JudySL, being more specialized than Hash,
might have a chance)...

 

[Eero Saynatkari]

It hardly gets faster than a Hash in Ruby.
You can also try a trie (Patricia tree if you have long keys and care
about
space),

A Trie optimised by cutting off unambiguous traversal would
be a definite possibility.

 

[Gregory Seidman]

} > On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 06:55:12AM +0900, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
} >> maybe somebody can recommend me the right datastructure or
} >> any other advice would be a big help.
} >>
} >> My code spends most of its execution time doing lookups from
} >> a hashtable with about 1M keys. The keys are strings and the values
} >> are arrays of integers. Most of the time only of length 1.
} >>
} >> I do not care how long the construction of the datastructure takes,
} >> but the lookup should be as fast as possible.
} >
} > It hardly gets faster than a Hash in Ruby.
} > You can also try a trie (Patricia tree if you have long keys and care
} > about
} > space),
}
} A Trie optimised by cutting off unambiguous traversal would
} be a definite possibility.

There is a trie gem that implements a Patricia Trie.

http://gemjack.com/gems/trie-0.0.1/classes/Trie.html

Of course, a Patricia Trie assumes no a priori knowledge of your string
inputs. If you know something about your keys, you may be able to do better
with a hash of hashes (to however many layers is appropriate), splitting as
appropriate for your key space. For example, if you know that your keys are
IPv4 addresses that come in dotted quad notation (e.g. 127.0.0.1), you
could do better with (note: untested):

class SplittableHash
def initialize(split)
@split = split
@root = {}
end

def [](key)
key.split(@split).inject(@root) { |h,k| h[k] if h }
end

def []=(key, val)
path = key.split(@split)
key = path.pop
path.inject(@root) { |h,k| h[k] ||= {} }[key] = val
end

end

--Greg

 

[Robert Klemme]

Hi all,

maybe somebody can recommend me the right datastructure or
any other advice would be a big help.

My code spends most of its execution time doing lookups from
a hashtable with about 1M keys. The keys are strings and the values
are arrays of integers. Most of the time only of length 1.

I do not care how long the construction of the datastructure takes,
but the lookup should be as fast as possible.

xs.each{|x|
if found = hash[x]
#do sth.
end
}

As others said already, a Hash is pretty much the fastest for the
general case. How do your string keys look like? Maybe it is worth
trying symbols instead of strings?

If you unveil a bit more about your application we might be able to come
up with more suggestions.

Kind regards

robert