1994
DOI: 10.1137/s0097539791194094
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic Perfect Hashing: Upper and Lower Bounds

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
52
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 221 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
52
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The contribution of this paper is a new hashing scheme called CUCKOO HASHING, which possesses the same theoretical properties as the classic dictionary of Dietzfelbinger et al [10], but is much simpler. The scheme has worst case constant lookup time and amortized expected constant time for updates.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The contribution of this paper is a new hashing scheme called CUCKOO HASHING, which possesses the same theoretical properties as the classic dictionary of Dietzfelbinger et al [10], but is much simpler. The scheme has worst case constant lookup time and amortized expected constant time for updates.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The scheme has worst case constant lookup time and amortized expected constant time for updates. Furthermore, the space usage is roughly 2n words, which should be compared with the 35n words used in [10]. This means that the space usage is similar to that of binary search trees.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Implementation Different ways of implementing hash tables have been extensively studied (e.g., [17,26,27,30,34]). Here we consider a simple approach for optimally implementing a hash table: Suppose we wish to store n elements from U in a data structure so that we can have expected constant look-up complexity.…”
Section: Hash Tablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The key to doing so is the realization that, in computing the intersection of two sets, the indices of the nonzero words in their respective full bit-vector representations themselves form sets which are intersected. Representing a set of indices using dynamic perfect hashing [4] gives an O(1) worstcase membership test and permits the members to be enumerated in linear time (since the storage used is linear in the cardinality). Hence the members of an intersection can be found by enumerating those in the smaller set and checking each for membership in the larger.…”
Section: Speeding Up Set Intersectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…) Yellin and Jutla [12] generalized the problem to that of computing the minimal (as in [8]) or maximal sets in the partial order on the distinct sets in F that is induced by the subset relation. They presented an algorithm that built the partial order in O(N 2 / log N ) operations over a dictionary ADT, and observed that universal hashing [3] or the more complex dynamic perfect hashing [4] gave a randomized amortized expected running time of O(1) per ADT operation. In [10] we showed that their worst-case bound was tight, and presented an implementation with a worst-case complexity of (N 2 / log N ) operations, including (in this case) bit-parallel operations on words.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%