hashtable-benchmarks VS Klib

Since the blog post mentioned a PR to replace linear probing with Robin Hood, I just wanted to mention that I found bidirectional linear probing to outperform Robin Hood across the board in my Java integer set benchmarks:

https://github.com/senderista/hashtable-benchmarks/blob/mast...

https://github.com/senderista/hashtable-benchmarks/wiki/64-b...

https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~magda/papers/wang-cidr17.pd...

I'm most interested in developing high-performance database engines in low-level languages, but open to any challenging systems programming project. I've been working in C++ for the last 3 years, but have written nontrivial projects in Rust and Java as well (e.g., https://github.com/senderista/rotated-array-set, https://github.com/senderista/hashtable-benchmarks). I would enjoy using Rust or Zig on a new project, but I consider the project itself to be much more important than the language it's written in. I am not interested in cryptocurrency, adtech, or fintech projects.

Thanks for the details on your benchmarks. I would like sometime to extend BLP to a more generic setting; as I said I think any trick used with RH would also work with BLP. I just used an integer set because that's all I needed for my use case and it was easy to implement several different approaches for benchmarking. As you note, it favors use cases where the hash function is cheap (or invertible) and elements are cheap to move around.

About your question on load factors: no, the benchmarks are measuring exactly what they claim to be. The hash table constructor divides max data size by load factor to get the table size (https://github.com/senderista/hashtable-benchmarks/blob/mast...), and the benchmark code instantiates each hash table for exactly the measured data set size and load factor (https://github.com/senderista/hashtable-benchmarks/blob/mast...).

I can't explain the peaks around 1M in many of the plots; I didn't investigate them at the time and I don't have time now. It could be a JVM artifact, but I did try to use JMH "best practices", and there's no dynamic memory allocation or GC happening during the benchmark at all. It would be interesting to port these tables to Rust and repeat the measurements with Criterion. For more informative graphs I might try a log-linear approach: divide the intervals between the logarithmically spaced data sizes into a fixed number of subintervals (say 4).

I think "bidirectional linear probing" is an underrated approach (and much simpler): https://github.com/senderista/hashtable-benchmarks/blob/master/src/main/java/set/int64/BLPLongHashSet.java

I will probably never get around to porting my bidirectional linear probing integer hash set from Java to C++, but I hope someone can try adapting BLP to general C++ hashmaps and hashsets, because it significantly outperforms Robin Hood in my benchmarks.

https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~magda/papers/wang-cidr17.pd...

I'm most interested in developing high-performance database engines in low-level languages, but open to any challenging systems programming project. I've been working in C++ for the last 2 years, but have written nontrivial projects in Rust and Java as well (e.g., https://github.com/senderista/rotated-array-set, https://github.com/senderista/hashtable-benchmarks). I would enjoy using Rust or Zig on a new project, but I consider the project itself to be much more important than the language it's written in. I am not interested in cryptocurrency, adtech, or fintech projects.

In my example the table stores the hash codes themselves instead of the keys (because the hash function is invertible)

Oh, I see, right. If determining the home bucket is trivial, then the back-shifting method is great. The issue is just that it’s not as much of a general-purpose solution as it may initially seem.

“With a different algorithm (Robin Hood or bidirectional linear probing), the load factor can be kept well over 90% with good performance, as the benchmarks in the same repo demonstrate.”

I’ve seen the 90% claim made several times in literature on Robin Hood hash tables. In my experience, the claim is a bit exaggerated, although I suppose it depends on what our idea of “good performance” is. See these benchmarks, which again go up to a maximum load factor of 0.95 (Although boost and Absl forcibly grow/rehash at 0.85-0.9):

https://strong-starlight-4ea0ed.netlify.app/

Tsl, Martinus, and CC are all Robin Hood tables (https://github.com/Tessil/robin-map, https://github.com/martinus/robin-hood-hashing, and https://github.com/JacksonAllan/CC, respectively). Absl and Boost are the well-known SIMD-based hash tables. Khash (https://github.com/attractivechaos/klib/blob/master/khash.h) is, I think, an ordinary open-addressing table using quadratic probing. Fastmap is a new, yet-to-be-published design that is fundamentally similar to bytell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2fKMP47slQ) but also incorporates some aspects of the aforementioned SIMD maps (it caches a 4-bit fragment of the hash code to avoid most key comparisons).

As you can see, all the Robin Hood maps spike upwards dramatically as the load factor gets high, becoming as much as 5-6 times slower at 0.95 vs 0.5 in one of the benchmarks (uint64_t key, 256-bit struct value: Total time to erase 1000 existing elements with N elements in map). Only the SIMD maps (with Boost being the better performer) and Fastmap appear mostly immune to load factor in all benchmarks, although the SIMD maps do - I believe - use tombstones for deletion.

I’ve only read briefly about bi-directional linear probing – never experimented with it.

It could be that the cost of the function calls, either directly or via a pointer, is drowned out by the cost of the one or more cache misses inevitably invoked with every hash table lookup. But I don't want to say too much before I've finished my benchmarking project and published the results. So let me just caution against laser-focusing on whether the comparator and hash function are/can be inlined. For example stb_ds uses a hardcoded hash function that presumably gets inlined, but in my benchmarking (again, I'll publish it here in coming weeks) shows it to be generally a poor performer (in comparison to not just CC, the current version of which doesn't necessarily inline those functions, but also STC, khash, and the C++ Robin Hood hash tables I tested).

Not an entirely uncommon idea. I've written one.

There's also a well-known one here, in klib: https://github.com/attractivechaos/klib/blob/master/kvec.h

Code reuse is achievable by (mis)using the preprocessor system. It is possible to build a somewhat usable API, even for intrusive data structures. (eg. the linux kernel and klib[1])

I do agree that generics are required for modern programming, but for some, the cost of complexity of modern languages (compared to C) and the importance of compatibility seem to outweigh the benefits.

[1]: http://attractivechaos.github.io/klib

Unordered hash map shootout CMAP = https://github.com/tylov/STC KMAP = https://github.com/attractivechaos/klib PMAP = https://github.com/greg7mdp/parallel-hashmap FMAP = https://github.com/skarupke/flat_hash_map RMAP = https://github.com/martinus/robin-hood-hashing HMAP = https://github.com/Tessil/hopscotch-map TMAP = https://github.com/Tessil/robin-map UMAP = std::unordered_map Usage: shootout [n-million=40 key-bits=25] Random keys are in range [0, 2^25). Seed = 1656617916: T1: Insert/update random keys: KMAP: time: 1.949, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 CMAP: time: 1.649, size: 15064129, buckets: 22145833, sum: 165525449561381 PMAP: time: 2.434, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554431, sum: 165525449561381 FMAP: time: 2.112, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 RMAP: time: 1.708, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554431, sum: 165525449561381 HMAP: time: 2.054, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 TMAP: time: 1.645, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 UMAP: time: 6.313, size: 15064129, buckets: 31160981, sum: 165525449561381 T2: Insert sequential keys, then remove them in same order: KMAP: time: 1.173, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 CMAP: time: 1.651, size: 0, buckets: 33218751, erased 20000000 PMAP: time: 3.840, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 20000000 FMAP: time: 1.722, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 RMAP: time: 2.359, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 20000000 HMAP: time: 0.849, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 TMAP: time: 0.660, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 UMAP: time: 2.138, size: 0, buckets: 31160981, erased 20000000 T3: Remove random keys: KMAP: time: 1.973, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 CMAP: time: 2.020, size: 0, buckets: 33218751, erased 23367671 PMAP: time: 2.940, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 23367671 FMAP: time: 1.147, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 RMAP: time: 1.941, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 23367671 HMAP: time: 1.135, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 TMAP: time: 1.064, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 UMAP: time: 5.632, size: 0, buckets: 31160981, erased 23367671 T4: Iterate random keys: KMAP: time: 0.748, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 CMAP: time: 0.627, size: 23367671, buckets: 33218751, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 PMAP: time: 0.680, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 FMAP: time: 0.735, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 RMAP: time: 0.464, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 HMAP: time: 0.719, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 TMAP: time: 0.662, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 UMAP: time: 6.168, size: 23367671, buckets: 31160981, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 T5: Lookup random keys: KMAP: time: 0.943, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 CMAP: time: 0.863, size: 23367671, buckets: 33218751, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 PMAP: time: 1.635, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 FMAP: time: 0.969, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 RMAP: time: 1.705, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 HMAP: time: 0.712, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 TMAP: time: 0.584, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 UMAP: time: 1.974, size: 23367671, buckets: 31160981, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438