open-elastic-hash 0.1.0

Implementation of Elastic and Funnel Hashing algorithms based on academic research

Elastic Hash

A Python implementation of advanced open addressing hash table algorithms from the paper "Optimal Bounds for Open Addressing Without Reordering" by Martín Farach-Colton, Andrew Krapivin, and William Kuszmaul.

Features

This library provides two cutting-edge hash table implementations:

1. ElasticHashTable: Achieves O(1) amortized expected probe complexity and O(log 1/δ) worst-case expected probe complexity without reordering elements.

2. FunnelHashTable: A greedy approach that achieves O(log² 1/δ) worst-case expected probe complexity, disproving the longstanding Yao's conjecture that O(1/δ) was optimal for greedy approaches.

Where δ is the fraction of empty slots in the table (e.g., if the table is 90% full, δ = 0.1).

Installation

pip install elastic-hash

Or install from source:

git clone https://github.com/yourusername/elastic-hash.git
cd elastic-hash
pip install -e .

Usage

ElasticHashTable

from elastic_hash import ElasticHashTable

# Create a new table with capacity 100
table = ElasticHashTable(100)

# Insert some values
table.insert("name", "John Doe")
table.insert("email", "[e-mail]")
table.insert("age", 30)

# Retrieve values
print(table.get("name"))  # "John Doe"
print(table.get("unknown"))  # None

# Check if key exists
print("name" in table)  # True

# Remove a key
table.remove("email")  # True

# Get size
print(len(table))  # 2

# Iterate over all key-value pairs
for key, value in table:
    print(f"{key}: {value}")

FunnelHashTable

from elastic_hash import FunnelHashTable

# Create a new table with capacity 100
table = FunnelHashTable(100)

# The API is the same as ElasticHashTable
table.insert("key", "value")
value = table.get("key")
exists = "key" in table
success = table.remove("key")

Advantages Over Built-in Dict

1. Bounded Operations: Our hash tables provide strong theoretical guarantees on worst-case operation time, which can be critical for real-time applications.

2. Consistent Performance: When operating at high load factors (e.g., 90% full), our hash tables maintain better worst-case performance than traditional approaches.

3. Memory Efficiency: Our implementations work well even when very full, allowing you to use memory more efficiently.

4. No Reordering: Unlike some advanced hash tables, our implementations never move elements after insertion, which can be important for certain applications.

Benchmarks

We've benchmarked both hash table implementations against Python's built-in dict. Here are some key findings from our tests:

Implementation	Load Factor	Insert (ops/sec)	Lookup Hit (ops/sec)	Lookup Miss (ops/sec)	Delete (ops/sec)
ElasticHashTable	0.5	~6,000	~740,000	~76,000	~620,000
ElasticHashTable	0.9	~6,500	~760,000	~78,000	~570,000
FunnelHashTable	0.5	~26,000	~550,000	~28,000	~160,000
FunnelHashTable	0.9	~27,000	~570,000	~28,000	~120,000

Key observations:

• FunnelHashTable is ~4x faster for insertions than ElasticHashTable
• ElasticHashTable has better lookup miss performance (when key doesn't exist)
• Both implementations maintain consistent performance even at high load factors (90%)
• The performance characteristics match the theoretical guarantees from the paper

The examples/benchmark.py script lets you run your own benchmarks across different capacities and load factors:

python examples/benchmark.py

# For visualization support, install matplotlib:
pip install matplotlib

Implementation Notes

ElasticHashTable

• Divides the array into subarrays of geometrically decreasing sizes
• Uses a two-dimensional probe sequence for each key
• Implements batch-based insertion to maintain balanced fill levels
• Achieves O(1) amortized expected probe complexity through careful distribution of work
• Excellent negative lookup performance (when key doesn't exist)
• Hash functions are carefully designed to avoid clustering

FunnelHashTable

• Divides the array into multiple levels with buckets of fixed size
• Uses a greedy approach where elements cascade down through levels
• Implements a special overflow area using the power-of-two-choices method
• Achieves O(log² 1/δ) worst-case expected probe complexity
• Superior insertion performance
• Can handle high load factors with minimal performance degradation

When to Use

Use ElasticHashTable when:

• Your workload is lookup-heavy, especially with many lookups for keys that don't exist
• You need optimal amortized performance
• You need better delete operation performance

Use FunnelHashTable when:

• Your workload is insert-heavy
• You want to maximize insertion throughput
• You need a greedy approach with better worst-case guarantees than traditional hash tables

Both implementations are ideal for:

• Real-time systems requiring predictable performance
• High load factor scenarios (>80% full)
• Memory-constrained environments
• Applications where elements shouldn't be reordered after insertion

Running Tests

# Run all tests
python run_all_tests.py

# Run a specific test
python -m unittest tests.test_hash_tables.TestElasticHashTable.test_high_load_factor

Our test suite verifies that both implementations:

• Handle basic operations (insert, get, remove) correctly
• Work at high load factors (up to 80%)
• Handle collisions properly
• Throw appropriate errors when the table is full

Credits

Based on the paper "Optimal Bounds for Open Addressing Without Reordering" by Martín Farach-Colton, Andrew Krapivin, and William Kuszmaul.

License

MIT