i know about LRU algorithm,but how to determine the calculation is key point.if the space is not enough,i want to find some files's weight which are below,then delete them and put in some files's weight which are high weight.some one ever did this?
Here are a few implementations:
1) http://www.careercup.com/question?id=14113740
2) How would you implement an LRU cache in Java?
3) http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/implement-lru-cache/
Related
I am working on my bachelor's final project, which is about the comparison between Apache Spark Streaming and Apache Flink (only streaming) and I have just arrived to "Physical partitioning" in Flink's documentation. The matter is that in this documentation it doesn't explain well how this two transformations work. Directly from the documentation:
shuffle(): Partitions elements randomly according to a uniform distribution.
rebalance(): Partitions elements round-robin, creating equal load per partition. Useful for performance optimisation in the presence of data skew.
Source: https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.2/dev/datastream_api.html#physical-partitioning
Both are automatically done, so what I understand is that they both redistribute equally (shuffle() > uniform distribution & rebalance() > round-robin) and randomly the data. Then I deduce that rebalance() distributes the data in a better way ("equal load per partitions") so the tasks have to process the same amount of data, but shuffle() may create bigger and smaller partitions. Then, in which cases might you prefer to use shuffle() than rebalance()?
The only thing that comes to my mind is that probably rebalance()requires some processing time so in some cases it might use more time to do the rebalancing than the time it will improve in the future transformations.
I have been looking for this and nobody has talked about this, only in a mailing list of Flink, but they don't explain how shuffle() works.
Thanks to Sneftel who has helped me to improve my question asking me things to let me rethink about what I wanted to ask; and to Till who answered quite well my question. :D
As the documentation states, shuffle will randomly distribute the data whereas rebalance will distribute the data in a round robin fashion. The latter is more efficient since you don't have to compute a random number. Moreover, depending on the randomness, you might end up with some kind of not so uniform distribution.
On the other hand, rebalance will always start sending the first element to the first channel. Thus, if you have only few elements (fewer elements than subtasks), then only some of the subtasks will receive elements, because you always start to send the first element to the first subtask. In the streaming case this should eventually not matter because you usually have an unbounded input stream.
The actual reason why both methods exist is a historically reason. shuffle was introduced first. In order to make the batch an streaming API more similar, rebalance was then introduced.
This statement by Flink is misleading:
Useful for performance optimisation in the presence of data skew.
Since it's used to describe rebalance, but not shuffle, it suggests it's the distinguishing factor. My understanding of it was that if some items are slow to process and some fast, the partitioner will use the next free channel to send the item to. But this is not the case, compare the code for rebalance and shuffle. The rebalance just adds to next channel regardless how busy it is.
// rebalance
nextChannelToSendTo = (nextChannelToSendTo + 1) % numberOfChannels;
// shuffle
nextChannelToSendTo = random.nextInt(numberOfChannels);
The statement can be also understood differently: the "load" doesn't mean actual processing time, just the number of items. If your original partitioning has skew (vastly different number of items in partitions), the operation will assign items to partitions uniformly. However in this case it applies to both operations.
My conclusion: shuffle and rebalance do the same thing, but rebalance does it slightly more efficiently. But the difference is so small that it's unlikely that you'll notice it, java.util.Random can generate 70m random numbers in a single thread on my machine.
On Riak :
Is there a way to process data expiration or to dump old data to free some space?
Is it efficient ?
Edit: Thanks to Joe to provide the answer and its workaround (answer down).
Data expiration should be thought from the very beginning as it requires an additional index with a map-reduce algorithme.
Short answer: No, there is no publisher-provided expiry.
Longer answer: Include the write time, in a integer representation like Unix epoch, in a secondary index entry on each value that you want to be subject to expiry. The run a periodic job during off-peak times to do a ranged 2I query to get any entries from 0 to (now - TTL). This could be used as an input to a map/reduce job to do the actual deletes.
As to recovering disk space, leveldb is very slow about that. When a value is written to leveldb it starts in level 0, then as each level fills, compaction moves values to the next level, so your least recently written data resides on disk in the lowest levels. When you delete a value, a tombstone is written to level 0, which masks the previous value in the lower level, and as normal compaction occurs the tombstone is moved down as any other value would be. The disk space consumed by the old value is not reclaimed until the tombstone reaches the same level.
I have written a little c++ tool that uses the leveldb internal function CompactRange to perform this task. Here you can read the article about this.
With this we are able to delete an entire bucket (key by key) and wipe all tombstones. 50Gb of 75Gb are freed!
Unfortunately, this only works if leveldb is used as backend.
So the question came up about whether tombstones should be included when calculating the load factor of a hash table.
I thought that, given that the load factor is used to determine when to expand capacity, tombstones should not be included. An obvious example is if you almost fill and then remove every value in a hash table. Here insertions are super easy (no collisions) so I believe the load factor shouldn't include them.
But you could look at this and think that with all the tombstones lookups will be slow (potentially searching almost the entire space).
So I thought I'd ask the question. Should the load factor of a hashtable include tombstones in the calculation?
Load factor is not an essential part of hash table data structure -- it is the way to define rules of behaviour for the dymamic system (growing/shrinking hash table is a dynamic system).
Moreover, in my opinion, in 95% of modern hash table cases this way is over simplified, dynamic systems behave suboptimally. It's advantages:
Well, simplicity of understanding and implementation.
Hash table data structure shouldn't store many numbers with some thresholds -- likely only one number. This is meaningful when hash table is very small and the size of the header affects total data structure memory efficiency (in bytes to store an entry).
In certain (and common) case: append/update only hash table, more complex models of behaviour degenerate to the "just load factor" model, in other words, load factor model defines relatively optimal behaviour.
See also my answer on load factor model. I prefer [min load, target load, max load] + growth factor frame model.
If you develop general-purpose hash table with tombstones, I think you can just pick up my results (below). I spend maybe several weeks solely developing this model. Maybe you can make some improvements or further research, I would be glad.
Two main hash table dynamic behaviour patterns are targeted:
growing hash table (maybe in growing phase), with little or no removals
initial fill of hash table, when proper capacity was not specified (or unknown)
hash table that remains of the same or nearly the same size, number of removals is equal or nearly equal to number of insertions
caches with upper size bound, LRUs, tables with entry expires
Two thresholds are defined:
max size (i. e. number of alive entries), table size * max load
min number of free (i. e. empty, without alive entry nor tombstone) slots, computed by magic formula.
If hash table size exceeds max size, we assume we are in the "growing pattern", rehash to the table size to be able to store current size * growth factor entries, i. e. choose table size closest possible to current size * growth factor / target load.
If the number of free slots becomes below than min number of free slots, we are in "cache pattern", rehash "to the current size", i. e. to the table size closest possible to current size / target load.
Read the source where all the above logics are coded.
Also, article Tombstones purge from hashtable: theory and practice sheds some light.
If you develop specially purposed hash table, which dymanic properties are known (or could be studied), I recommend you to develop your own model, fitting your case. Don't rely on pure math and CS theory, evaluate your model in benchmarks.
I am curious to know what is the reasoning that could overweighs towards using a self-balancing tree technique to store items than using a hash table.
I see that hash tables cannot maintain the insertion-order, but I could always use a linked list on top to store the insertion-order sequence.
I see that for small number of values, there is an added cost of of the hash-function, but I could always save the hash-function together with the key for faster lookups.
I understand that hash tables are difficult to implement than the straight-forward implementation of a red-black tree, but in a practical implementation wouldn't one be willing to go an extra mile for the trouble?
I see that with hash tables it is normal for collisions to occur, but with open-addressing techniques like double hashing that allow to save the keys in the hash table itself, hasn't the problem been reduced to the effect of not tipping the favor towards red black trees for such implementations?
I am curious if I am strictly missing a disadvantage of hash table that still makes red black trees quite viable data structure in practical applications (like filesystems, etc.).
Here is what I can think of:
There are kinds of data which cannot be hashed (or is too expensive to hash), therefore cannot be stored in hash tables.
Trees keep data in the order you need (sorted), not insertion order. You can't (effectively) do that with hash table, even if you run a linked list through it.
Trees have better worst-case performace
Storage allocation is another consideration. Every time you fill all of the buckets in a hash-table, you need to allocate new storage and re-hash everything. This can be avoided if you know the size of the data ahead of time. On the other hand, balanced trees don't suffer from this issue at all.
Just wanted to add :
Balanced binary trees have a predictable time of fetching a data [log n] independent of the type of data. Many times that may be important for your application to estimate the response times for your application. [hash tables may have unpredictable response times]. Remember for smaller n's as in most common use cases the difference in performance in an in-memory look up is hardly going to matter and the bottle neck of the system is going to be elsewhere and sometimes you just want to make the system much simpler to debug and analyze.
Trees are generally more memory efficient compared to hash tables and much simpler to implement without any analysis on the distribution of input keys and possible collisions etc.
In my humble opinion, self-balancing trees work pretty well as Academic topics. And I
do not know anything that can be qualified as a "straight-forward implementation of a
red-black tree".
In the real world, the memory wall makes them far less efficient than they are on paper.
With this in mind, hash tables are decent alternatives, especially if you don't practice
them the Academic style (forget about the table size constraint and you magically resolve
the table resize issue and almost all collision issues).
In a word: keep it simple. If that's simple for you then that's simple for your computer.
I think if you want to query for a range of keys instead of one key, self balanced tree structure will perform better than a hash table structure.
A few reasons I can think of:
Trees are dynamic (the space complexity is N), whereas hash tables are often implemented as arrays which are fixed size, which means they will often be initialized with K size, where K > N, so even if you only have 1 element in a hashmap, you might still have 100 empty slots that take up memory. Another effect of this is:
Increasing the size of an array-based hash table is costly (O(N) average time, O(N log N) worst case), whereas trees can grow in constant time (O(1)) + (time to locate insertion point (O(log N))
Elements in a tree can be gathered in sorted order (using ex: in-order-traversal). Thereby you often get a sorted list as a free perk with trees.
Trees can have a better worst-case performance vs a hashmap depending on how the hashmap is implemented (ex: hashmap with chaining will have O(N) worst case, whereas self-balanced trees can guarantee O(log N) worst case for all operations).
Both self-balanced trees and hashmaps have a worst-case efficiency of O(log N) in the best worst-case (assuming that the hashmap does handle colissions), but Hashmaps can have a better average-case performance (often close to O(1)), whereas Trees will have a constant O(log N). This is because even thou a hashmap can locate the insertion index in O(1), it has to account for hash colissions (more than one element hashing to the same array index), and thus in the best case degrades to a self-balanced tree (such as the Java implementation of hashmap), that is, each element in the hashmap can be implemented as a self-balanced tree, storing all elements which has hashed to the given array cell.
I've been reading a lot about Hash Tables and how to implement on in C and I think I have almost all the concepts in my head so I can start to code my own, I just have a couple of questions that I have yet to properly understand.
As a reference, I've been reading this:
http://eternallyconfuzzled.com/jsw_home.aspx
1) As I've read on the site above, a power of two or a prime number is recommended for the Hash Table size. This is basically an array and an array has a fixed size so I can quickly look up for the value I'm looking for. I can't declare a small array if I have a large input as it won't fit and I can't declare a very large array if my input data is not that large cause it's wasted memory.
What is the optimum size for the Hash Table? What should I base my decision on?
2) Also, on that site, there's a couple of hashing functions which I have yet to read them all. It also states that it's always best to use a good known algorithm and to roll my own. And I might do just that, I'll pick one from that site and test it out on my code and see if it minimizes collisions based on my input data.
What's bugging me is how I control the hash range? The hash can't return and integer larger than the Hash Table size or we'll have a serious problem. How do I deal with this?
1) What you are referring to is the load factor of the hash table - the percentage of buckets that are expected to be filled. Wikipedia has this to say:
With a good hash function, the average
lookup cost is nearly constant as the
load factor increases from 0 up to 0.7
or so. Beyond that point, the
probability of collisions and the cost
of handling them increases.
I believe the Java implementation (and probably others) resizes periodically to keep the load factor within an acceptable range.
2) Just use the modulo operator (%) to keep the bucket index legal. The second operator should be the size of your bucket array.
Pick a small size for your hash table. As you add stuff to your table, check to see what percentage of the table is being used; when it is greater than 70% full, make the table bigger. This also holds true as you remove elements-- make the table smaller when it is less than 60% full, for instance. Wikipedia has a good description of some strategies for dynamic resizing, but that's the general idea.
I only say this because you seem to have known input data:
If you know the rough order of magnitude of the amount of data you will be storing in the hash table, it's generally good enough to just create a table about that big. (You shouldn't worry about whether everything will fit. Instead, the right thing to think about is how many collisions you will have and how you will handle them.)
As for the right hash function, it's possible that the structure of your input will suggest which one will be correct. For instance, what aspects of your input are likely to be evenly distributed?