The fastest way to retrieve 16k Key-Value pairs?

4
votes

OK, here's my situation :

  • I have a function - let's say U64 calc (U64 x) - which takes a 64-bit integer parameter, performs some CPU-intensive operation, and returns a 64-bit value
  • Now, given that I know ALL possible inputs (the xs) of that function beforehand (there are some 16000 though), I thought it might be better to pre-calculate them and then fetch them on demand (from an array-like structure).
  • The ideal situation would be to store them all in some array U64 CALC[] and retrieve them by index (the x again)
  • And here's the issue : I may know what the possible inputs for my calc function are, but they are most definitely NOT consecutive (e.g. not from 1 to 16000, but values that may go as low as 0 and as high as some trillions - always withing a 64-bit range)

E.G.

  X        CALC[X]
-----------------------
  123123   123123123
  12312    12312312
  897523   986123

  etc.

And here comes my question :

  • How would you store them?
  • What workaround would you prefer?
  • Now, given that these values (from CALC) will have to be accessed some thousands-to-millions of times, per sec, which would be the best solution performance-wise?

Note : I'm no mentioning anything I've thought of or tried so as not to turn the answers into some debate of A vs B type-of-thing, and mostly not influence anyone...

6
c++carraysmaphashtable
Profile using map, set, and unordered_map, then make an informed decision. – Retired Ninja
Showing what you've tried might help. There are also some answers here that might help, including one that implies using a map has pretty good performance. Also consider a hashmap. – Rob I
you could also try to use a trie. – didierc
if you know the access patterns of your data structures, you could also implement some caching techniques (LRU, MRU comes to mind). – didierc
You could consider using a minimal perfect hash. Most of the literature for this concentrates on strings, but I see no reason the technique could not be used on integers. – md5i

6 Answers

4
votes

I would use some sort of hash function that creates an index to a u64 pair where one is the value the key was created from and the other the replacement value. Technically the index could be three bytes long (assuming 16 million -"16000 thousand" - pairs) if you need to conserve space but I'd use u32s. If the stored value does not match the value computed on (hash collision) you'd enter an overflow handler.

  • You need to determine a custom hashing algorithm to fit your data
  • Since you know the size of the data you don't need algorithms that allow the data to grow.
  • I'd be wary of using some standard algorithm because they seldom fit specific data
  • I'd be wary of using a C++ method unless you are sure the code is WYSIWYG (doesn't generate a lot of invisible calls)
  • Your index should be 25% larger than the number of pairs

Run through all possible inputs and determine min, max, average and standard deviation for the number of collisions and use these to determine the acceptable performance level. Then profile to achieve the best possible code.

The required memory space (using a u32 index) comes out to (4*1.25)+8+8 = 21 bytes per pair or 336 MeB, no problem on a typical PC.

________ EDIT________

I have been challenged by "RocketRoy" to put my money where my mouth is. Here goes:

The problem has to do with collision handling in a (fixed size) hash index. To set the stage:

  • I have a list of n entries where a field in the entry contains the value v that the hash is computed from
  • I have a vector of n*1.25 (approximately) indeces such that the number of indeces x is a prime number
  • A prime number y is computed which is a fraction of x
  • The vector is initialized to say -1 to denote unoccupied

Pretty standard stuff I think you'll agree.

The entries in the list are processed and the hash value h computed and modulo'd and used as an index into the vector and the index to the entry is placed there.

Eventually I encounter the situation where the vector entry pointed to by the index is occupied (doesn't contain -1) - voilà, a collision.

So what do I do? I keep the original h as ho, add y to h and take modulo x and get a new index into the vector. If the entry is unoccupied I use it, otherwise I continue with add y modulo x until I reach ho. In theory, this will happen because both x and y are prime numbers. In practice x is larger than n so it won't.

So the "re-hash" that RocketRoy claims is very costly is no such thing.

The tricky part with this method - as with all hashing methods - is to:

  • Determine a suitable value for x (becomes less tricky the larger x finally used)
  • Determine the algorithm a for h=a(v)%x such that a the h's index reasonably evenly ("randomly") into the index vector with as few collisions as possible
  • Determine a suitable value for y such that collisions index reasonably evenly ("randomly") into the index vector

________ EDIT________

I'm sorry I've taken so long to produce this code ... other things have had higher priorities.

Anyway, here is the code which proves that hashing has better prospects for quick lookups than a binary tree. It runs through a bunch of hashing index sizes and algorithms to aid in finding the most suitable combo for the specific data. For every algorithm the code will print the first index size such that no lookup takes longer than fourteen searches (worst case for binary searching) and an average lookup takes less than 1.5 searches.

I have a fondness for prime numbers in these types of applications, in case you haven't noticed.

There are many ways of creating a hashing algorithm with its mandatory overflow handling. I opted for simplicity assuming it will translate into speed ... and it does. On my laptop with an i5 M 480 @ 2.67 GHz an average lookup requires between 55 and 60 clock cycles (comes out to around 45 million lookups per second). I implemented a special get operation with a constant number of indeces and ditto rehash value and the cycle count dropped to 40 (65 million lookups per second). If you look at the line calling getOpSpec the index i is xor'ed with 0x444 to exercise the caches to achieve more "real world"-like results.

I must again point out that the program suggests suitable combinations for the specific data. Other data may require a different combo.

The source code contains both the code for generating the 16000 unsigned long long pairs and for testing different constants (index sizes and rehash values):

#include <windows.h>

#define i8    signed char
#define i16          short
#define i32          long
#define i64          long long
#define id  i64
#define u8           char
#define u16 unsigned short
#define u32 unsigned long
#define u64 unsigned long long
#define ud  u64

#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>

u64 prime_find_next     (const u64 value);
u64 prime_find_previous (const u64 value);

static inline volatile unsigned long long rdtsc_to_rax (void)
{
  unsigned long long lower,upper;

  asm volatile( "rdtsc\n"
                : "=a"(lower), "=d"(upper));
  return lower|(upper<<32);
}

static u16 index[65536];

static u64 nindeces,rehshFactor;

static struct PAIRS {u64 oval,rval;} pairs[16000] = {
#include "pairs.h"
};

struct HASH_STATS
{
  u64 ninvocs,nrhshs,nworst;
} getOpStats,putOpStats;

i8 putOp (u16 index[], const struct PAIRS data[], const u64 oval, const u64 ci)
{
  u64 nworst=1,ho,h,i;
  i8 success=1;

  ++putOpStats.ninvocs;
  ho=oval%nindeces;
  h=ho;
  do
  {
    i=index[h];
    if (i==0xffff)    /* unused position */
    {
      index[h]=(u16)ci;
      goto added;
    }
    if (oval==data[i].oval) goto duplicate;

    ++putOpStats.nrhshs;
    ++nworst;

    h+=rehshFactor;
    if (h>=nindeces) h-=nindeces;
  } while (h!=ho);

  exhausted:    /* should not happen */
  duplicate:
    success=0;

  added:
  if (nworst>putOpStats.nworst) putOpStats.nworst=nworst;

  return success;
}

i8 getOp (u16 index[], const struct PAIRS data[], const u64 oval, u64 *rval)
{
  u64 ho,h,i;
  i8 success=1;

  ho=oval%nindeces;
  h=ho;
  do
  {
    i=index[h];
    if (i==0xffffu) goto not_found;    /* unused position */

    if (oval==data[i].oval)
    {
      *rval=data[i].rval;    /* fetch the replacement value */
      goto found;
    }

    h+=rehshFactor;
    if (h>=nindeces) h-=nindeces;
  } while (h!=ho);

  exhausted:
  not_found:    /* should not happen */
    success=0;

  found:

  return success;
}

volatile i8 stop = 0;

int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
  u64 i,rval,mulup,divdown,start;
  double ave;

  SetThreadAffinityMask (GetCurrentThread(), 0x00000004ull);

  divdown=5;   //5
  while (divdown<=100)
  {
    mulup=3;  // 3
    while (mulup<divdown)
    {
      nindeces=16000;
      while (nindeces<65500)
      {
        nindeces=   prime_find_next     (nindeces);
        rehshFactor=nindeces*mulup/divdown;
        rehshFactor=prime_find_previous (rehshFactor);

        memset (index, 0xff, sizeof(index));
        memset (&putOpStats, 0, sizeof(struct HASH_STATS));

        i=0;
        while (i<16000)
        {
          if (!putOp (index, pairs, pairs[i].oval, (u16) i)) stop=1;

          ++i;
        }

        ave=(double)(putOpStats.ninvocs+putOpStats.nrhshs)/(double)putOpStats.ninvocs;
        if (ave<1.5 && putOpStats.nworst<15)
        {
          start=rdtsc_to_rax ();
          i=0;
          while (i<16000)
          {
            if (!getOp (index, pairs, pairs[i^0x0444]. oval, &rval)) stop=1;
            ++i;
          }
          start=rdtsc_to_rax ()-start+8000;   /* 8000 is half of 16000 (pairs), for rounding */

          printf ("%u;%u;%u;%u;%1.3f;%u;%u\n", (u32)mulup, (u32)divdown, (u32)nindeces, (u32)rehshFactor, ave, (u32) putOpStats.nworst, (u32) (start/16000ull));

          goto found;
        }

        nindeces+=2;
      }
      printf ("%u;%u\n", (u32)mulup, (u32)divdown);

      found:
      mulup=prime_find_next (mulup);
    }
    divdown=prime_find_next (divdown);
  }

  SetThreadAffinityMask (GetCurrentThread(), 0x0000000fu);

  return 0;
}

It was not possible to include the generated pairs file (an answer is apparently limited to 30000 characters). But send a message to my inbox and I'll mail it.

And these are the results:

3;5;35569;21323;1.390;14;73
3;7;33577;14389;1.435;14;60
5;7;32069;22901;1.474;14;61
3;11;35107;9551;1.412;14;59
5;11;33967;15427;1.446;14;61
7;11;34583;22003;1.422;14;59
3;13;34253;7901;1.439;14;61
5;13;34039;13063;1.443;14;60
7;13;32801;17659;1.456;14;60
11;13;33791;28591;1.436;14;59
3;17;34337;6053;1.413;14;59
5;17;32341;9511;1.470;14;61
7;17;32507;13381;1.474;14;62
11;17;33301;21529;1.454;14;60
13;17;34981;26737;1.403;13;59
3;19;33791;5333;1.437;14;60
5;19;35149;9241;1.403;14;59
7;19;33377;12289;1.439;14;97
11;19;34337;19867;1.417;14;59
13;19;34403;23537;1.430;14;61
17;19;33923;30347;1.467;14;61
3;23;33857;4409;1.425;14;60
5;23;34729;7547;1.429;14;60
7;23;32801;9973;1.456;14;61
11;23;33911;16127;1.445;14;60
13;23;33637;19009;1.435;13;60
17;23;34439;25453;1.426;13;60
19;23;33329;27529;1.468;14;62
3;29;32939;3391;1.474;14;62
5;29;34543;5953;1.437;13;60
7;29;34259;8263;1.414;13;59
11;29;34367;13033;1.409;14;60
13;29;33049;14813;1.444;14;60
17;29;34511;20219;1.422;14;60
19;29;33893;22193;1.445;13;61
23;29;34693;27509;1.412;13;92
3;31;34019;3271;1.441;14;60
5;31;33923;5449;1.460;14;61
7;31;33049;7459;1.442;14;60
11;31;35897;12721;1.389;14;59
13;31;35393;14831;1.397;14;59
17;31;33773;18517;1.425;14;60
19;31;33997;20809;1.442;14;60
23;31;34841;25847;1.417;14;59
29;31;33857;31667;1.426;14;60
3;37;32569;2633;1.476;14;61
5;37;34729;4691;1.419;14;59
7;37;34141;6451;1.439;14;60
11;37;34549;10267;1.410;13;60
13;37;35117;12329;1.423;14;60
17;37;34631;15907;1.429;14;63
19;37;34253;17581;1.435;14;60
23;37;32909;20443;1.453;14;61
29;37;33403;26177;1.445;14;60
31;37;34361;28771;1.413;14;59
3;41;34297;2503;1.424;14;60
5;41;33587;4093;1.430;14;60
7;41;34583;5903;1.404;13;59
11;41;32687;8761;1.440;14;60
13;41;34457;10909;1.439;14;60
17;41;34337;14221;1.425;14;59
19;41;32843;15217;1.476;14;62
23;41;35339;19819;1.423;14;59
29;41;34273;24239;1.436;14;60
31;41;34703;26237;1.414;14;60
37;41;33343;30089;1.456;14;61
3;43;34807;2423;1.417;14;59
5;43;35527;4129;1.413;14;60
7;43;33287;5417;1.467;14;61
11;43;33863;8647;1.436;14;60
13;43;34499;10427;1.418;14;78
17;43;34549;13649;1.431;14;60
19;43;33749;14897;1.429;13;60
23;43;34361;18371;1.409;14;59
29;43;33149;22349;1.452;14;61
31;43;34457;24821;1.428;14;60
37;43;32377;27851;1.482;14;81
41;43;33623;32057;1.424;13;59
3;47;33757;2153;1.459;14;61
5;47;33353;3547;1.445;14;61
7;47;34687;5153;1.414;13;59
11;47;34519;8069;1.417;14;60
13;47;34549;9551;1.412;13;59
17;47;33613;12149;1.461;14;61
19;47;33863;13687;1.443;14;60
23;47;35393;17317;1.402;14;59
29;47;34747;21433;1.432;13;60
31;47;34871;22993;1.409;14;59
37;47;34729;27337;1.425;14;59
41;47;33773;29453;1.438;14;60
43;47;31253;28591;1.487;14;62
3;53;33623;1901;1.430;14;59
5;53;34469;3229;1.430;13;60
7;53;34883;4603;1.408;14;59
11;53;34511;7159;1.412;13;59
13;53;32587;7963;1.453;14;60
17;53;34297;10993;1.432;13;80
19;53;33599;12043;1.443;14;64
23;53;34337;14897;1.415;14;59
29;53;34877;19081;1.424;14;61
31;53;34913;20411;1.406;13;59
37;53;34429;24029;1.417;13;60
41;53;34499;26683;1.418;14;59
43;53;32261;26171;1.488;14;62
47;53;34253;30367;1.437;14;79
3;59;33503;1699;1.432;14;61
5;59;34781;2939;1.424;14;60
7;59;35531;4211;1.403;14;59
11;59;34487;6427;1.420;14;59
13;59;33563;7393;1.453;14;61
17;59;34019;9791;1.440;14;60
19;59;33967;10937;1.447;14;60
23;59;33637;13109;1.438;14;60
29;59;34487;16943;1.424;14;59
31;59;32687;17167;1.480;14;61
37;59;35353;22159;1.404;14;59
41;59;34499;23971;1.431;14;60
43;59;34039;24799;1.445;14;60
47;59;32027;25471;1.499;14;62
53;59;34019;30557;1.449;14;61
3;61;35059;1723;1.418;14;60
5;61;34351;2803;1.416;13;60
7;61;35099;4021;1.412;14;59
11;61;34019;6133;1.442;14;60
13;61;35023;7459;1.406;14;88
17;61;35201;9803;1.414;14;61
19;61;34679;10799;1.425;14;101
23;61;34039;12829;1.441;13;60
29;61;33871;16097;1.446;14;60
31;61;34147;17351;1.427;14;61
37;61;34583;20963;1.412;14;59
41;61;32999;22171;1.452;14;62
43;61;33857;23857;1.431;14;98
47;61;34897;26881;1.431;14;60
53;61;33647;29231;1.434;14;60
59;61;32999;31907;1.454;14;60
3;67;32999;1471;1.455;14;61
5;67;35171;2621;1.403;14;59
7;67;33851;3533;1.463;14;61
11;67;34607;5669;1.437;14;60
13;67;35081;6803;1.416;14;61
17;67;33941;8609;1.417;14;60
19;67;34673;9829;1.427;14;60
23;67;35099;12043;1.415;14;60
29;67;33679;14563;1.452;14;61
31;67;34283;15859;1.437;14;60
37;67;32917;18169;1.460;13;61
41;67;33461;20443;1.441;14;61
43;67;34313;22013;1.426;14;60
47;67;33347;23371;1.452;14;61
53;67;33773;26713;1.434;14;60
59;67;35911;31607;1.395;14;58
61;67;34157;31091;1.431;14;63
3;71;34483;1453;1.423;14;59
5;71;34537;2423;1.428;14;59
7;71;33637;3313;1.428;13;60
11;71;32507;5023;1.465;14;79
13;71;35753;6529;1.403;14;59
17;71;33347;7963;1.444;14;61
19;71;35141;9397;1.410;14;59
23;71;32621;10559;1.475;14;61
29;71;33637;13729;1.429;14;60
31;71;33599;14657;1.443;14;60
37;71;34361;17903;1.396;14;59
41;71;33757;19489;1.435;14;61
43;71;34583;20939;1.413;14;59
47;71;34589;22877;1.441;14;60
53;71;35353;26387;1.418;14;59
59;71;35323;29347;1.406;14;59
61;71;35597;30577;1.401;14;59
67;71;34537;32587;1.425;14;59
3;73;34613;1409;1.418;14;59
5;73;32969;2251;1.453;14;62
7;73;33049;3167;1.448;14;61
11;73;33863;5101;1.435;14;60
13;73;34439;6131;1.456;14;60
17;73;33629;7829;1.455;14;61
19;73;34739;9029;1.421;14;60
23;73;33071;10399;1.469;14;61
29;73;33359;13249;1.460;14;61
31;73;33767;14327;1.422;14;59
37;73;32939;16693;1.490;14;62
41;73;33739;18947;1.438;14;60
43;73;33937;19979;1.432;14;61
47;73;33767;21739;1.422;14;59
53;73;33359;24203;1.435;14;60
59;73;34361;27767;1.401;13;59
61;73;33827;28229;1.443;14;60
67;73;34421;31583;1.423;14;71
71;73;33053;32143;1.447;14;60
3;79;35027;1327;1.410;14;60
5;79;34283;2161;1.432;14;60
7;79;34439;3049;1.432;14;60
11;79;34679;4817;1.416;14;59
13;79;34667;5701;1.405;14;59
17;79;33637;7237;1.428;14;60
19;79;34469;8287;1.417;14;60
23;79;34439;10009;1.433;14;60
29;79;33427;12269;1.448;13;61
31;79;33893;13297;1.445;14;61
37;79;33863;15823;1.439;14;60
41;79;32983;17107;1.450;14;60
43;79;34613;18803;1.431;14;60
47;79;33457;19891;1.457;14;61
53;79;33961;22777;1.435;14;61
59;79;32983;24631;1.465;14;60
61;79;34337;26501;1.428;14;60
67;79;33547;28447;1.458;14;61
71;79;32653;29339;1.473;14;61
73;79;34679;32029;1.429;14;64
3;83;35407;1277;1.405;14;59
5;83;32797;1973;1.451;14;60
7;83;33049;2777;1.443;14;61
11;83;33889;4483;1.431;14;60
13;83;35159;5503;1.409;14;59
17;83;34949;7151;1.412;14;59
19;83;32957;7541;1.467;14;61
23;83;32569;9013;1.470;14;61
29;83;33287;11621;1.474;14;61
31;83;33911;12659;1.448;13;60
37;83;33487;14923;1.456;14;62
41;83;33587;16573;1.438;13;60
43;83;34019;17623;1.435;14;60
47;83;31769;17987;1.483;14;62
53;83;33049;21101;1.451;14;61
59;83;32369;23003;1.465;14;61
61;83;32653;23993;1.469;14;61
67;83;33599;27109;1.437;14;61
71;83;33713;28837;1.452;14;61
73;83;33703;29641;1.454;14;61
79;83;34583;32911;1.417;14;59
3;89;34147;1129;1.415;13;60
5;89;32797;1831;1.461;14;61
7;89;33679;2647;1.443;14;73
11;89;34543;4261;1.427;13;60
13;89;34603;5051;1.419;14;60
17;89;34061;6491;1.444;14;60
19;89;34457;7351;1.422;14;79
23;89;33529;8663;1.450;14;61
29;89;34283;11161;1.431;14;60
31;89;35027;12197;1.411;13;59
37;89;34259;14221;1.403;14;59
41;89;33997;15649;1.434;14;60
43;89;33911;16127;1.445;14;60
47;89;34949;18451;1.419;14;59
53;89;34367;20443;1.434;14;60
59;89;33791;22397;1.430;14;59
61;89;34961;23957;1.404;14;59
67;89;33863;25471;1.433;13;60
71;89;35149;28031;1.414;14;79
73;89;33113;27143;1.447;14;60
79;89;32909;29209;1.458;14;61
83;89;33617;31337;1.400;14;59
3;97;34211;1051;1.448;14;60
5;97;34807;1789;1.430;14;60
7;97;33547;2417;1.446;14;60
11;97;35171;3967;1.407;14;89
13;97;32479;4349;1.474;14;61
17;97;34319;6011;1.444;14;60
19;97;32381;6337;1.491;14;64
23;97;33617;7963;1.421;14;59
29;97;33767;10093;1.423;14;59
31;97;33641;10739;1.447;14;60
37;97;34589;13187;1.425;13;60
41;97;34171;14437;1.451;14;60
43;97;31973;14159;1.484;14;62
47;97;33911;16127;1.445;14;61
53;97;34031;18593;1.448;14;80
59;97;32579;19813;1.457;14;61
61;97;34421;21617;1.417;13;60
67;97;33739;23297;1.448;14;60
71;97;33739;24691;1.435;14;60
73;97;33863;25471;1.433;13;60
79;97;34381;27997;1.419;14;59
83;97;33967;29063;1.446;14;60
89;97;33521;30727;1.441;14;60

Cols 1 and 2 are used to calculate a rough relationship between the rehash value and the index size. The next two are the first index size/rehash factor combination which averages less than 1.5 searches for a lookup with a worst case of 14 searches. Then average and worst case. Finally, the last column is the average number of clock cycles per lookup. It does not take into account the time required to read the time stamp register.

The actual memory space for the best constants (# of indeces = 31253 and rehash factor = 28591) comes out to more than I initially indicated (16000*2*8 + 1,25*16000*2 => 296000 bytes). The actual size is 16000*2*8+31253*2 => 318506.

The fastest combination is an approximate ratio of 11/31 with an index size of 35897 and rehash value of 12721. This will average 1.389 (1 initial hash + 0.389 rehashes) with a maximum of 14 (1+13).

________ EDIT________

I removed the "goto found;" in main () to show all combinations and it shows that much better performance is possible, of course at the expense of a larger index size. For example the combination 57667 and 33797 yields and average of 1.192 and a maximum rehash of 6. The combination 44543 and 23399 yields a 1.249 average and 10 maximum rehashes (it saves (57667-44543)*2=26468 bytes of index table compared to 57667/33797).

Specialized functions with hard-coded hash index size and rehash factor will execute in 60-70% of the time compared to variables. This is probably due to the compiler (gcc 64-bit) substituting the modulo with multiplications and not having to fetch the values from memory locations as they will be coded as immediate values.

________ EDIT________

On the subject of caches I see two issues.

The first is data cacheing which I don't think will be possible because the lookup will just be a small step in some larger process and you run the risk of the table data's cache lines begin invalidated to a lesser or (probably) greater degree - if not entirely - by other data accesses in other steps of the larger process. I e the more code executed and data accessed in the process as a whole the less likely it will be that any pertinent lookup data will remain in the caches (this may or may not be pertinent to the OP's situation). To find an entry using (my) hashing you will encounter two cache misses (one to load the correct part of the index, and the other to load the area containg the entry itself) for every comparison that needs to be performed. Finding an entry on the first try will have cost two misses, the second try four etc. In my example the 60 clock cycle average cost per lookup implies that the table probably resided entirely in the L2 cache and with L1 not having to go there in a majority of the cases. My x86-64 CPU has L1-3, RAM wait states of approximately 4, 10, 40 and 100 which to me shows that RAM was completely kept out and L3 mostly.

The second is code cacheing which will have a more significant impact if it is small, tight, in-lined and with few control transfers (jumps and calls). My hash routine probably resides entirely in the L1 code cache. For more normal cases, the fewer the number of code cache line loads the faster it will be.

1
votes

Make an array of structures of key val pairs.

Sort the array by key, put this in your program as static array, would only be 128kbyte.

Then in your program a simple binary look up by key will need on average only 14 key comparisons to find the right value. Should be able to approach speeds of 300 million look ups per second on modern pc.

You can sort with qsort and search with bsearch, both std lib functions.

1
votes

Perform memonization, or in simple terms, cache the values you've computed already and calculate the new ones. You should hash the input and check the cache for that result. You can even start off with a set of cache values that you think the function would get called more often for. Besides that, I don't think you need to go to any extreme as the other answer suggest. Do things simple and when you are done with your application you can use a profiling tool to find bottle necks.

EDIT: Some code

#include <iostream>
#include <ctime>
using namespace std;

const int MAX_SIZE = 16000;

int preCalcData[MAX_SIZE] = {};

int getPrecalculatedResult(int x){
 return preCalcData[x];
}

void setupPreCalcDataCache(){
  for(int i = 0; i < MAX_SIZE; ++i){
    preCalcData[i] = i*i; //or whatever calculation
  }
}

int main(){
  setupPreCalcDataCache();

  cout << getPrecalculatedResult(0) << endl;
  cout << getPrecalculatedResult(15999) << endl;

  return 0;
}
0
votes

I wouldn't worry about performance too much. This simple example, using an array and binary search lower_bound

#include <stdint.h>
#include <algorithm>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

const int N = 16000;
typedef std::pair<uint64_t, uint64_t> CALC;
CALC calc[N];

static inline bool cmp_calcs(const CALC &c1, const CALC &c2)
{
    return c1.first < c2.first;
}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    std::iostream::sync_with_stdio(false);
    for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
        calc[i] = std::make_pair(i, i);

    std::sort(&calc[0], &calc[N], cmp_calcs);

    for (long i = 0; i < 10000000; ++i) {
        int r = rand() % 16000;
        CALC *p = std::lower_bound(&calc[0], &calc[N], std::make_pair(r, 0), cmp_calcs);
        if (p->first == r)
            std::cout << "found\n";
    }

    return 0;
}

and compiled with

g++ -O2 example.cpp

does, including setup, 10,000,000 searches in about 2 seconds on my 5 year old PC.

0
votes

You need to store 16 thousand values efficiently, preferably in memory. We are assuming that the computation of these values is more time consuming than accessing them from storage.

You have at your disposal many different data structures to get the job done, including databases. If you access these values in queriable chunks, then the DB overhead may very well be absorbed and spread accross your processing.

You mentioned map and hashmap (or hashtable) already in your question tags, but these are probably not the best possible answers for your problem, although they could do a fair job, provided that the hashing function isn't more expensive than the direct computation of the target UINT64 value, which has to be your reference benchmark.

Are probably much better suited. Having some experience with it, I would probably go for a B-tree: they support fairly well serialization. That should let you prepare your dataset in advance in a different program. VEB trees have a very good access time (O(log log(n)), but I don't know how easily they may be serialized.

Later on, if you need even more performance, it would also be interesting to know usage patterns of your "database" to figure out what caching techniques you could implement on top of the store.

-2
votes

Using std::pair is better than any of map for speed.

but if I were you, I firstly use a std::list to store the data, after I got them all, I move them into a simple vector, then retrieving goes very fast if you implement a simple binary tree search by yourself.