What's a fast "if user A and user B like product C, they might be interested to follow each other" algorithm. I don't think that calculating their similarity at runtime is smart enough, because it will slow down the response. On the other hand, computing an overnight index will require making an (N*N-1) different runs, where N is the number of users ... not very clever, too. Plus, every time a user likes a new product, or a new user registers, indexes have to be recomputed.
What's the smartest thing which could be applied here? Some sort of ultrafast hashing, to which then only the new items are added?
Well among the algorithms that I studied in a course in Uni, there was one dealing with things like this. Their recommended approach was to compute a "similarity" index for each pair of users (which I guess is your N*N method mentioned) and then based on this determine to which users a particular user is closest to.
Of course, you are not required to immediately recalculate the similarity indexes for every change, just once in a while, somewhat like a search engine crawler works. In fact, once you have computed the initial index, you can use various heuristic methods to recompute more often for users who change their preferences fast, and much slower for those who only change them rarely.
Have you thought about an RDF database?
Like OWLIM http://www.ontotext.com/owlim
Related
I decided to revise Java collection framework, so I started with internal implementation. One question came on my mind, which I can't solve. Hope someone can make a clear explanation on following.
ArrayList uses linear or binary search (both have pros/cons), but we can do anything with them! My question is why do all 'hashing' classes (like HashMap f.e.) use hashing principle? Couldn't they settle with linear or binary search for example? Why just not store Key/Value pair inside array? And the opposite, why isn't (for example ArrayList stored in hashTable)?
The intention of the collections framework is that the programmer will choose the data structure appropriate to the use case. Depending on what you're using it for, different data structures are appropriate.
Hashing classes use the hashing principle, as you put it, because if you choose them, then that's what you want to use. (Hashing is generally the best choice for simple, straightforward lookups.) A screwdriver uses the screwing principle because if you pick up a screwdriver, you want to screw something in; if you had a nail you needed to put in, you would have picked up the hammer instead.
But if you're not going to be performing lookups, or if linear search is good enough for you, then an ArrayList is what you want. It's not worth adding a hash table to a collection that's never going to use it, and it costs CPU and memory to do things you aren't going to need.
I had a large hash of values (about 1,500). The nature of the code was that once the hashmap was loaded it would never be altered. The hashmap was accessed many times per web page, and I had wondered if it could be sped up for faster page loading.
One day I had some time, so I did a series of time tests (using the nano time function). I then reworked the hashmap use over to an array. Not an ArrayList, but an actual array[]. I stored the index with the key class used to get the hash value.
There was a difference, that the array lookup was faster. I calculated that over a days worth of activity I would have saved almost a full second!
So yes, using an array is faster than using a hash, YMMV :-)
And I reverted my code back to using a hashmap, as it was easier to maintain...
I am fairly new to DS and Algorithms and recently at a job interview I was asked a question on performance tuning along with code. We have a Data Structure which contains multi-billion entries and we need to search a particular word in that data structure. So which Java feature/library can we use to do the searching in the quickest time possible ?
On the spot I could not think of exact answer so I wrote that:
We can store the values in a map and search words in the map (but got stuck how to decide key-value pair in the map).
How can I understand the exact answer to this question and what can be the optimal solution(s) ?
After reading the question and getting clarification in the comments, I think what has become apparent to me is that: you needed to ask follow-up questions.
I'll try to break it down and provide comments that I hope will be helpful, because I also know what it's like to be "in the moment" and how nerves can stab you in the back when you least need them to.
We have a Data Structure which contains multi-billion entries and we need to search a particular word in that data structure.
I think a good follow-up question here would've been:
Q: What specific data structure is being used to contain all this data?
I would press until they give me an actual name and explain why it is not possible to name a Java algorithm/library. For all you know, the data structure could've been String[], a Set<String>, or even a fancy name for a file on disk (if they're trying to throw you off). They could've also clarified and said the DS was not relevant and that you could pick whichever DS you thought was best.
The wording also implies that they implemented the structure and that it's already populated in a system with, presumably, enough memory to hold all of it. Asking to confirm that this is really the case could've given you helpful information.
For example: "Based on the wording, it seems this mystery data structure is already implemented and fully populated in memory in a system with enough memory to hold it. Can you confirm my understanding here is correct? If not, could you clarify further?"
Given the suggested wording, and the fact that we don't have additional clarifications to go from, I will assume, for the purposes of this answer, that my suppositions are indeed correct.
Note that if you had been asked to design the data structure to hold all of this info, you would've had to ask very different questions, take memory constraints into account, and perhaps even ask about character sets/encodings (e.g. ASCII vs multi-byte Unicode).
Also, if you had been asked to design the search algorithm, then knowing the DS is a pre-requisite, and not knowing this could've made the task impossible. For example, the binary search algorithm implementation will look very different if you're working on an array vs a binary search tree, even though both would offer O(lg n) time complexity.
So which java feature/library can we use to do the searching in the quickest time possible?
Consistent with the 1st part, this question only asks what pre-existing/built-in Java code you would choose to perform the search for you. The "quickest time possible" here should make you think about solutions that are in O(1), i.e. are constant time. However, the data structure may open/close doors for you.
Some search algorithms in Java work on generics and others work on other types like arrays. Some algorithms work on Maps while others work on Lists, Sets, and so on. The follow-up question from the first part could've helped in answering this question.
That said, even if you knew the DS, but couldn't think of a specific method name or such at the time, I also think it should be considered reasonable to mention the interface or at least a relevant package and say that further details can be checked on the the Java documentation if you're pressed for more specificity, given that's what it's there for in the first place.
We can store the values in a map and search words in the map (but got stuck how to decide key-value pair in the map).
Given the wording, my interpretation of their question was not "which data structure would you use?", but rather, "which pre-existing search algorithm would you choose?". It seems to me like it was them who needed to answer the question regarding DS.
That said, if you had indeed been asked "which data structure would you use?", then a Map would've still worked against you, since you didn't really need to map a key to a value. You only needed to store a value (i.e. the words). Therefore, a Set, specifically a HashSet, would've been a better candidate, since it also avoids duplicates and should consume less memory in the process because it stores singular values, rather than key/value pairs.
Of course, that's still under the assumption(s) I made earlier. If memory constraints are said to be an issue, then scaling horizontally to multiple servers and so on would've likely been necessary.
How can I understand the exact answer to this question and what can be the optimal solution(s)?
It is probably the case that they wanted to see if you would follow up with questions, given the lack of information they gave you.
There are a couple data structures that allow for efficient searching, assuming that memory requirements aren't an issue and the data structure is already populated.
Regarding time complexity, Set#contains and Map#containsKey are both O(1), assuming that the hash function isn't expensive and that there aren't many collisions.
Because the data structure stores words (assuming you're referring to Strings), then it could also be relatively efficient to use a trie (radix tree, prefix tree, etc.), which would allow you to search by character (which I believe would be O(log n)). If the hash function is expensive or there are many collisions, this could be a good alternative!
The answer that you gave to the interviewer should suffice since hashing is an effective searching method, even for billions of entries.
You did not mention whether the entries are words or documents (multiple words). In both cases a search index could be suitable.
Search indexes extract words from the billion document entries and manage a map of these words to the documents they are used in. Frameworks like Lucene (e.g. as part of SOLR or ElasticSearch) manage memory and persistence for you.
If it were only multiple of thousands of entries, a simple HashMap would be sufficient because there is no need for memory management then. If all of the billion entries are single words, a database could be a slightly better choice.
The hashmap solution is reasonable as stated by others but there are doubts with respect to scalability.
Here is a possible solution for the problem as discussed in the below post
Sub-string match If your entry blob is a single sting or word (without any white space) and you need to search arbitrary sub-string within it. In such cases you need to parse every entry to find best possible entries that matches. One uses algorithms like Boyer Moor algorithm. See this and this for details. This is also equivalent to grep - because grep uses similar stuff inside
Indexed search. Here you are assuming that entry contains set of words and search is limited to fixed word lengths. In this case, entries are indexed over all the possible occurrences of words. This is often called "Full Text search". There are number of algorithms to do this and number of open source projects that can be used directly. Many of them, also support wild card search, approximate search etc. as below :
a. Apache Lucene : http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/index.html
b. OpenFTS : http://openfts.sourceforge.net/
c. Sphinx http://sphinxsearch.com/
Most likely if you need "fixed words" as queries, the approach two will be very fast and effective
Reference - https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/118759/how-to-quickly-search-through-a-very-large-list-of-strings-records-on-a-databa
Multi-billion entries lie at the edge of what might conceivably be stored in main memory (for instance, storing 10 billion entries at 100 bytes per entry will take 1000 GB main memory).
While storing the data in main memory offers a very high throughput (thousands to millions of requests per second), you'd likely need special hardware (typical blade servers only offers 16 GB, but there are commodity servers that permit installation of up to 3000 GB of main memory). Also, keeping this much data in the Java Heap will likely cause garbage collector pauses of seconds or minutes unless special care is taken.
Therefore, unless the structure of your data admits a very compact representation in main memory (say, you only need membership checking among ints, which is possible with a 512 MB Bitset), you'll not want to store it in main memory, but on disk.
Therefore, you'll need persistence. Any relational or NoSQL database permits efficient searching by key and can handle such amounts of data with ease. To talk to a relational database, use JPA or JDBC. To talk to a non-relational database, you can use their proprietary Java API or an abstraction layer such as Spring Data.
You could also implement persistence from scratch if you wanted to (i.e. the interviewer asks for that). A data structure optimized for efficient lookup in external memory is the B-Tree, that's what many databases use internally :-)
I have some function (for example, double function(double value)), and some range (for example, from A to B). I need to calculate max value of function in this range. Are there existed libraries for it? Please, give me advice.
If the function needs to handle floating-point values, you're going to have to use something like Golden section search. Note that for this specific method, there are significant limitations regarding the functions that can be handled (specifically it must be unimodal). There are some adjustments you can make to the algorithm which extend it to more functions, specifically these modifications will allow it to work for continuous functions.
Is this a continuous function, or a set of discrete values? If discrete values, then you can either iterate over all values, and set max/min flags as 808sound suggests, or you can load all values into an array.
If it's a continuous function, then you can either populate an array with the function's value at discrete inputs, and find the max as above, or if it's differentiable, then you can use basic calculus to find the points at which df(x)/dx are 0. The latter case is a little more abstract, and probably more complicated than you want, though?
A quick google search led me to this:
http://code.google.com/p/javacalculus/
But I've never used it myself, so I don't know if that implements the required functionality. It does differential equations, though, so I assume they'd have "baby stuff" like basic differentiation.
I do not know if there are any librairies in Java for your problem.
But I know you can easily do that with MatLab (or Octave for the OpenSource equivalent).
If you do not have any indication of what the functions inner workings are (i.e. the function is a black box that accepts an input and produces an output), there is no "easy" way to find the global maximum.
There are an infinite number of points to choose for your input (technically) so "iterating over all possible inputs" is not feasible mathematically.
There are various algorithms that will give you estimated maximum values ina function like this:
The hill climbing algorithm, and the firefly algorithm are two, but there are many more. This is a fairly well documented/studied computer science problem and there is a lot of material online for you to look at. I suggest starting with the hill climbing algorithm, and maybe expanding out to other global optimization algorithms.
Note: These algorithms do not guarantee that the result is the maximum, but provide an estimate of its value.*
I just realized that in my 4+ years of Java programming (mostly desktop apps) I never used the binary search methods in the Arrays class for anything practical. Not even once. Some reasons I can think of:
100% of the time you can get away with linear search, maps or something else that isn't binary search.
The incoming data is almost never sorted, and making it sorted requires an extra sorting step.
So I wonder if it's just me, or do a lot of people never use binary search? And what are some good, practical usage examples of binary search?
On the desktop, you're probably just dealing with the user's data, which might not be all that big. If you are querying over very large datasets, shared by many users, then it can be a different matter. A lot of people don't necessarily deal with binary search directly, but anyone using a database is probably using it implicitly. If you use AppEngine, for example, datastore queries almost certainly use binary search.
I would say it boils down to this:
If we are going to do a binary search, we're going to have a key to search by. If we have a key, we're probably using a map instead of an array.
There's another very important thing to keep in mind:
Binary search is a clear-cut example of how thinking like a good programmer is very different than thinking like a normal person. It's one of those cognitive leaps that makes you really think about taking operations that are traditionally done (when done by humans) in order-n time and taking it down to order-lg-n time. And that makes it very, very useful even if it's never used in production code.
I hardly ever, if ever use a binary search.
But I would if:
I needed to search the same list multiple times
the list was long enough to have a performance problem (although I'm often guilty of micro-optimization)
However, I often use hash tables / dictionaries for fast lookups.
For production code on my day job, a Set or Map is always good enough so far.
For algorithmic problems that a I solve for fun, binary search is a very useful technique. For starters, if the set of elements never changes (i.e. you are never going to insert or delete elements in the set being queried) a Map/Set has no advantage over binary search - and a binary search over a simple array avoids a lot of the overhead associated with querying a more complex data structure. In many cases I have seen it to be actually faster than a HashMap.
Binary search is also a more general technique than just querying for membership in a set. Binary search can be performed on any monotone function to find a value for which the function satisfies a certain criteria. You can find a more detailed explanation here. But as I said, my line of work does not bring up enough computationally involved problems for this to be applicable.
Assume you have to search an element in a list.
You could use linear search, you’ll get O(n).
Alternatively, you could sort it by fastest algorithm (O(log n)*n), and binary search(O(log n)). You’ll get O((log n)*n + log n).
That means when searching large size of list, binary search is better. Also, it depends data structure of list. If list is a link based list, binary search is bad practice.
All,
I have been going through a lot of sites that post about the performance of various Collection classes for various actions i.e. adding an element, searching and deleting. But I also notice that all of them provide different environments in which the test was conducted i.e. O.S, memory, threads running etc.
My question is, if there is any site/material that provides the same performance information on best test environment basis? i.e. the configurations should not be an issue or catalyst for poor performance of any specific data structure.
[Updated]: Example, HashSet and LinkedHashSet both have a complexity of O (1) for inserting an element. However, Bruce Eckel' test claims that insertion is going to take more time for LinkedHashSet than for HashSet [http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=122295]. So should I still go by the Big-Oh notation ?
Here are my recommendations:
First of all, don't optimize :) Not that I am telling you to design crap software, but just to focus on design and code quality more than premature optimization. Assuming you've done that, and now you really need to worry about which collection is best beyond purely conceptual reasons, let's move on to point 2
Really, don't optimize yet (roughly stolen from M. A. Jackson)
Fine. So your problem is that even though you have theoretical time complexity formulas for best cases, worst cases and average cases, you've noticed that people say different things and that practical settings are a very different thing from theory. So run your own benchmarks! You can only read so much, and while you do that your code doesn't write itself. Once you're done with the theory, write your own benchmark - for your real-life application, not some irrelevant mini-application for testing purposes - and see what actually happens to your software and why. Then pick the best algorithm. It's empirical, it could be regarded as a waste of time, but it's the only way that actually works flawlessly (until you reach the next point).
Now that you've done that, you have the fastest app ever. Until the next update of the JVM. Or of some underlying component of the operating system your particular performance bottleneck depends on. Guess what? Maybe your clients have different ones. Here comes the fun: you need to be sure that your benchmark is valid for others or in most cases (or have fun writing code for different cases). You need to collect data from users. LOTS. And then you need to do that over and over again to see what happens and if it still holds true. And then re-write your code accordingly over and over again (The - now terminated - Engineering Windows 7 blog is actually a nice example of how user data collection helps to make educated decisions to improve user experience.
Or you can... you know... NOT optimize. Platforms and compilers will change, but a good design should - on average - perform well enough.
Other things you can also do:
Have a look at the JVM's source code. It's very educative and you discover a herd of hidden things (I'm not saying that you have to use them...)
See that other thing on your TODO list that you need to work on? Yes, the one near the top but that you always skip because it's too hard or not fun enough. That one right there. Well get to it and leave the optimization thingy alone: it's the evil child of a Pandora's Box and a Moebius band. You'll never get out of it, and you'll deeply regret you tried to have your way with it.
That being said, I don't know why you need the performance boost so maybe you have a very valid reason.
And I am not saying that picking the right collection doesn't matter. Just that ones you know which one to pick for a particular problem, and that you've looked at alternatives, then you've done your job without having to feel guilty. The collections have usually a semantic meaning, and as long as you respect it you'll be fine.
In my opinion, all you need to know about a data structure is the Big-O of the operations on it, not subjective measures from different architectures. Different collections serve different purposes.
Maps are dictionaries
Sets assert uniqueness
Lists provide grouping and preserve iteration order
Trees provide cheap ordering and quick searches on dynamically changing contents that require constant ordering
Edited to include bwawok's statement on the use case of tree structures
Update
From the javadoc on LinkedHashSet
Hash table and linked list implementation of the Set interface, with predictable iteration order.
...
Performance is likely to be just slightly below that of HashSet, due to the added expense of maintaining the linked list, with one exception: Iteration over a LinkedHashSet requires time proportional to the size of the set, regardless of its capacity. Iteration over a HashSet is likely to be more expensive, requiring time proportional to its capacity.
Now we have moved from the very general case of choosing an appropriate data-structure interface to the more specific case of which implementation to use. However, we still ultimately arrive at the conclusion that specific implementations are well suited for specific applications based on the unique, subtle invariant offered by each implementation.
What do you need to know about them, and why? The reason that benchmarks show a given JDK and hardware setup is so that they could (in theory) be reproduced. What you should get from benchmarks is an idea of how things will work. For an ABSOLUTE number, you will need to run it vs your own code doing your own thing.
The most important thing to know is the Big O runtime of various collections. Knowing that getting an element out of an unsorted ArrayList is O(n), but getting it out of a HashMap is O(1) is HUGE.
If you are already using the correct collection for a given job, you are 90% of the way there. The times when you need to worry about how fast you can, say, get items out of a HashMap should be pretty darn rare.
Once you leave single threaded land and move into multi-threaded land, you will need to start worrying about things like ConcurrentHashMap vs Collections.synchronized hashmap. Until you are multi threaded, you can just not worry about this kind of stuff and focus on which collection for which use.
Update to HashSet vs LinkedHashSet
I haven't ever found a use case where I needed a Linked Hash Set (because if I care about order I tend to have a List, if I care about O(1) gets, I tend to use a HashSet. Realistically, most code will use ArrayList, HashMap, or HashSet. If you need anything else, you are in a "edge" case.
The different collection classes have different big-O performances, but all that tells you is how they scale as they get large. If your set is big enough the one with O(1) will outperform the one with O(N) or O(logN), but there's no way to tell what value of N is the break-even point, except by experiment.
Generally, I just use the simplest possible thing, and then if it becomes a "bottleneck", as indicated by operations on that data structure taking much percent of time, then I will switch to something with a better big-O rating. Quite often, either the number of items in the collection never comes near the break-even point, or there's another simple way to resolve the performance problem.
Both HashSet and LinkedHashSet have O(1) performance. Same with HashMap and LinkedHashMap (actually the former are implemented based on the later). This only tells you how these algorithms scale, not how they actually perform. In this case, LinkHashSet does all the same work as HashSet but also always has to update a previous and next pointer to maintain the order. This means that the constant (this is an important value also when talking about actual algorithm performance) for HashSet is lower than LinkHashSet.
Thus, since these two have the same Big-O, they scale the same essentially - that is, as n changes, both have the same performance change and with O(1) the performance, on average, does not change.
So now your choice is based on functionality and your requirements (which really should be what you consider first anyway). If you only need fast add and get operations, you should always pick HashSet. If you also need consistent ordering - such as last accessed or insertion order - then you must also use the Linked... version of the class.
I have used the "linked" class in production applications, well LinkedHashMap. I used this in one case for a symbol like table so wanted quick access to the symbols and related information. But I also wanted to output the information in at least one context in the order that the user defined those symbols (insertion order). This makes the output more friendly for the user since they can find things in the same order that they were defined.
If I had to sort millions of rows I'd try to find a different way. Maybe I could improve my SQL, improve my algorithm, or perhaps write the elements to disk and use the operating system's sort command.
I've never had a case where collections where the cause of my performance issues.
I created my own experimentation with HashSets and LinkedHashSets. For add() and contains the running time is O(1) , not taking into consideration for a lot of collisions. In the add() method for a linkedhashset, I put the object in a user created hash table which is O(1) and then put the object in a separate linkedlist to account for order. So the running time to remove an element from a linkedhashset, you must find the element in the hashtable and then search through the linkedlist that has the order. So the running time is O(1) + O(n) respectively which is o(n) for remove()