I am following this example from Spark documentation for calculating the TF-IDF for a bunch of documents. Spark uses the hashing trick for this calculations so at the end you get a Vector containing the hashed words and the corresponding weight but... How can I get back the words from the hash?
Do I really have to hash all the words and save them in a map for later iterate through it looking for the keywords? There is no more efficient way built-in Spark?
Thanks in advance
The transformation of String to hash in HashingTF results in a positive integer between 0 and numFeatures (default 2^20) using org.apache.spark.util.Utils.nonNegativeMod(int, int).
The original string is lost; there is no way to convert from the resulting integer to the input string.
You need to create a dictionary that maps all tokens in your data set into a hash value. But, since you are using the hashing trick, there may be hash collisions and the mapping is not perfectly invertable.
If you use CountVectorizer instead of HashingTF (TFIDF is basically a suit of the HashingTF transform and IDF fit), then it's probably better suited to your need because you can recuperate the indexed vocabulary.
String[] vocabulary= countVectorizerModel.vocabulary();
so that you know how to find them;
For instance, having a resulting SparseVector like (11,[0,1,3],[1.0,... , where [0,1,3] represents the indices of vocabulary terms encountered in respective text , then you can get the terms by referring to:
vocabulary[index]
If you need to to that in the context of LDA topic terms, the solution is the same.
Related
I searched many posts but I didnt find answer. I'd like to search and access values in collection by searching by value. My object type is DictionaryWord with two values: String word and int wordUsage (number of times the word was used). I was wondering which collection would be the fastest. If I write down "wa" I'd like it to give me e.g. 5 strings that start with these letters. Any list or set would be probably way too slow as I have 100 000 objects.
I thought about using a HashMap by making its key values String word and its values int wordUsage. I could even write my own hash() function to just give every key same value after hashing - key: "writing", hash value: "writing". Considering there are no duplicates would it be a good idea or should I look for something else?
My point is: how and what do I use to search for values that have some part of the value used in the search condition. For example writing down "tea" i find in collection values like: "tea", "teacher", "tear", "teaching" etc.
The fastest I can think of is a binary search tree. I found this to be very helpful and it should make it clear why a tree is the best option.
Probably, you need prefix tree. Take a look at Trie wiki page for further information.
I'm looking for the most effective way of creating hashcodes for a very specific case of strings.
I have strings that can be converted to integer, they vary from 1 to 10,000, and they are very concentrated on the 1-600 range.
My question is what is the most effective way, in terms of performance for retrieving the items from a collection to implement the hashcode for it.
What I'm thinking is:
I can have the strings converted to integer and use a direct acess table (an array of 10.000 rows) - this will be very fast for retrieving but not very smart in terms of memory allocation;
I can use the strings as strings and get a hashcode for it (i wont have to convert it to integer, but i dont know how effective will be the hashcode for the strings in terms of collisions)
Any other ideas are greatly appreciated.
thanks a lot
Thanks everyone for your promptly replies...
There is another information Tha i've forget to add on this. I tink it Will Make this clear if I let you know my final goal with this-I migh not even need a hash table!!!
I just want to validate a stream against a dictiory that is immutable. I want to check if a given tag might or might not be present on my message.
I will receive a string with several pairs tag=value. I want to verify if the tag must or must not be treated by my app.
You might want to consider a trie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trie) or radix tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_tree). No need to parse the string into an integer, or compute a hash code. You're walking a tree as you walk the string.
Edit:
Both computing a hash code on a string and parsing an integer out of a string involve walking the entire the string, and THEN using that value as a look-up into a specific data structure. Other techniques might involve simultaneously inspecting the string WHILE traversing a data structure. This MIGHT be of value to the poster who asked for "other ideas".
Many collections (e.g. HashMap) already apply a supplemental "rehash" method to help with poor hashcode algorithms. e.g. browse the cource code for HashMap.hash(). And Strings are very common keys, so you can be sure that String.hashCode() is highly optimized. SO, unless you notice a lot of collisions between your hashCodes, I'd go with the standard code.
I tried putting the Strings for 0..600 into a HashSet to see what happened, but it's then pretty tedious to see how many entries had collisions. Look for yourself! If you really really care, copy the source code from HashMap into your own class, edit it so you can get access to the entries (in the Java 6 source code I'm looking at, that would be transient Entry[] table, YMMV), and add methods to count collisions.
If there are only a limited valid range of values, why not represent the collection as a int[10000] as you suggested? The value at array[x] is the number of times that x occurs.
If your strings are represented as decimal integers, then parsing them to strings is a 5-iteration loop (up to 5 digits) and a couple of additions and subtractions. That is, it is incredibly fast. Inserting the elements is effectively O(1), retrieval is O(1). Memory required is around 40kb (4 bytes per int).
One problem is that insertion order is not preserved. Maybe you don't care.
Maybe you could think about caching the hashcode and only updating it if your collection has changed since the last time hashcode() was called. See Caching hashes in Java collections?
«Insert disclaimer about only doing this when it's a hot spot in your application and you can prove it»
Well the integer value itself will be a perfect hash function, you will not get any collisions. However there are two problems with this approach:
HashMap doesn't allow you to specify a custom hash function. So either you'll have to implement you own HashMap or you use a wrapper object.
HashMap uses a bitwise and instead of a modulo operation to find the bucket. This obviously throws bits away since it's just a mask. java.util.HashMap.hash(int) tries to compensate for this but I have seen claims that this is not very successful. Again we're back to implementing your own HashMap.
Now that this point since you're using the integer value as a hash function why not use the integer value as a key in the HashMap instead of the string? If you really want optimize this you can write a hash map that uses int instead of Integer keys or use TIntObjectHashMap from trove.
If you're really interested in finding good hash functions I can recommend Hashing in Smalltalk, just ignore the half dozen pages where the author rants about Java (disclaimer: I know the author).
Suppose I have a large list (around 10,000 entries) of string triples as such:
car noun yes
dog noun no
effect noun yes
effect verb no
Suppose I am presented with a string double - for example, (effect, verb) - and I need to quickly look in the list to see if the pair appears and, if it does, whether its value is yes or no. (For this example the double does appear and the value is "no".)
What is the best data structure in Java to store the list and the most efficient way to perform the search? I am running hundreds of thousands of these searches so speed is of the essence.
Thanks!
You might consider using a HashMap<YourDouble, String>. Searches will be O(1).
You could either create an object, YourDouble which holds the first two values, or else append one to the other -- if values will still be unique -- and use HashMap<String, String>.
I would create a HashMultimap for each type of search you want, e.g. "all three", "each pair", and "each single field". When you build the list, populate all the different maps, then you can fetch from whichever map is appropriate for your query.
(The downside is that you'll need a type for at least each arity, e.g. use just String for the "single field" maps, but a Pair for the two-field maps, and a Triple for the three-field map.)
You could use a HashMap where the key is the concatenation of the first two strings, the ones which you'll use for lookups, and the value is a Boolean, representing the yes and no strings.
Alternatively, it seems the words in the second column would be fewer, since they represent categories. You could have a HashMap<String, HashMap<String, Boolean>> where you first index by e.g. "noun", "verb" etc. and then you index by e.g. "car", "dog", "effect", to get to your boolean. This would probably be more space-efficient.
10k doesn't seem that large to me. Have you tried a DB?
The place to look for information like this is the Semantic Web. A number of projects work on Triple Stores of just this type. There's a list at the bottom of the Triple Store page of implementations.
As far as java is concerned your algorithms are almost certainly going to be language dependent and if you find a good algorithm implemented in C its java port will also be fast.
Also, what's your data set look like? Are there a lot of 2 matches such that subject and verb are often the same? How many matches are you expecting to get? MapReduce will work work well for finding one match in 10k but won't work as well doing a query that returns a 8k of 10k where the query can't be easily partitioned.
There's a query language made just for this problem too: SPARQL. The bigdata blog has some good insights, though again 10k doesn't seem that large.
I have a text with about 300 - 500 words. Also i got about 200k keywords and i want to know if each of the keywords is contained in the text. A String contains ist quite slow, is there some way to preprocess the String?
I thought about using a SuffixTree but im not sure this is the best choice.
Also, are there any good librarys for this task? semanticdiscoverytoolkit for example has a suffixtree implementation but after adding the string i cant figure out how to look up if a string is contained in the tree.
Greetings,
Nico
you can try the rabin-karp string search algorithm. since you are doing mostly hash (integer) comparisons, the performance is much better than string comparisons.
compute the hash of the keyword
compute the rolling hash of the text
compare these 2 hashes. if they match, perform the actual string comparison.
advance the position by 1 character and repeat from step 2 until you reach the end of the text.
as a analogy, the rolling hash is like a "sliding window" that scrolls along the text. the hash comparison is done using the hash of the substring in the "sliding window" against the hash of the keyword.
You can use StringTokenizer to get each of the words then populate a hashmap which you check afterwards. This requires going through each list only once. Lookup times should then be very fast which is important given the amount of keywords you have.
It may be worth it to profile this method against something like Lucene.
Goal: to find count of all words in a file. file contains 1000+ words
My approach: use a HashMap<String,Integer>() to store and count the number of times each word appears in the file.
Question:
Would a HashMap() be the best way or would it be better to use a Binary Tree for ensuring faster lookup as there is a large count of words in the file?
Or is there a better way to do this?
HashMap would result in a lot of memory overhead which is not desired.
So you're looking for distinct words?
The most efficient structure I can think of is a Trie
Here's one open source implementation: Google Code patricia-trie
Although I tend to agree with Mitch Wheat -- It sounds like a HashMap should work fine (It's always best to avoid premature optimization... so you should use a HashMap until you've shown that it's a bottleneck)
1000 - 10000 words is very small.
A Hashmap will be fine.
I would recommend doing such a task in Perl/PHP. It's very hard to kill a fly with a machine gun.
A HashMap is perfect. You need to store
a copy of each word encountered
the count for each
A HashMap really won't store much more than that!
Assuming that the strings are not insanely long, a "Trie" approach as Michael suggest would be good. The node in the Trie can store the character and the "count" of the strings that end with that character. This should drastically reduce the storage requirements (again assuming the strings are uniformly distributed and overlapping)
Assuming that the counts are not to be persisted across invocations, while using a HashMap, let the Map be from Integer => Integer - where the "key" is the hashcode of the string and value the count. This should be a efficient solution - with fast lookup and reduced memory foot print.