Load thresholds for cuckoo hashing with overlapping blocks

Dietzfelbinger and Weidling [DW07] proposed a natural variation of cuckoo hashing where each of $cn$ objects is assigned $k = 2$ intervals of size $\ell$ in a linear (or cyclic) hash table of size $n$ and both start points are chosen independently and uniformly at random. Each object must be placed into a table cell within its intervals, but each cell can only hold one object. Experiments suggested that this scheme outperforms the variant with blocks in which intervals are aligned at multiples of $\ell$. In particular, the load threshold is higher, i.e. the load $c$ that can be achieved with high probability. For instance, Lehman and Panigrahy [LP09] empirically observed the threshold for $\ell = 2$ to be around $96.5\%$ as compared to roughly $89.7\%$ using blocks. They managed to pin down the asymptotics of the thresholds for large $\ell$, but the precise values resisted rigorous analysis. We establish a method to determine these load thresholds for all $\ell \geq 2$, and, in fact, for general $k \geq 2$. For instance, for $k = \ell = 2$ we get $\approx 96.4995\%$. The key tool we employ is an insightful and general theorem due to Leconte, Lelarge, and Massouli\'e [LLM13], which adapts methods from statistical physics to the world of hypergraph orientability. In effect, the orientability thresholds for our graph families are determined by belief propagation equations for certain graph limits. As a side note we provide experimental evidence suggesting that placements can be constructed in linear time with loads close to the threshold using an adapted version of an algorithm by Khosla [Kho13]

On randomness in Hash functions

In the talk, we shall discuss quality measures for hash functions used in data structures and algorithms, and survey positive and negative results. (This talk is not about cryptographic hash functions.) For the analysis of algorithms involving hash functions, it is often convenient to assume the hash functions used behave fully randomly; in some cases there is no analysis known that avoids this assumption. In practice, one needs to get by with weaker hash functions that can be generated by randomized algorithms. A well-studied range of applications concern realizations of dynamic dictionaries (linear probing, chained hashing, dynamic perfect hashing, cuckoo hashing and its generalizations) or Bloom filters and their variants. A particularly successful and useful means of classification are Carter and Wegman's universal or k-wise independent classes, introduced in 1977. A natural and widely used approach to analyzing an algorithm involving hash functions is to show that it works if a sufficiently strong universal class of hash functions is used, and to substitute one of the known constructions of such classes. This invites research into the question of just how much independence in the hash functions is necessary for an algorithm to work. Some recent analyses that gave impossibility results constructed rather artificial classes that would not work; other results pointed out natural, widely used hash classes that would not work in a particular application. Only recently it was shown that under certain assumptions on some entropy present in the set of keys even 2-wise independent hash classes will lead to strong randomness properties in the hash values. The negative results show that these results may not be taken as justification for using weak hash classes indiscriminately, in particular for key sets with structure. When stronger independence properties are needed for a theoretical analysis, one may resort to classic constructions. Only in 2003 it was found out how full randomness can be simulated using only linear space overhead (which is optimal). The "split-and-share" approach can be used to justify the full randomness assumption in some situations in which full randomness is needed for the analysis to go through, like in many applications involving multiple hash functions (e.g., generalized versions of cuckoo hashing with multiple hash functions or larger bucket sizes, load balancing, Bloom filters and variants, or minimal perfect hash function constructions). For practice, efficiency considerations beyond constant factors are important. It is not hard to construct very efficient 2-wise independent classes. Using k-wise independent classes for constant k bigger than 3 has become feasible in practice only by new constructions involving tabulation. This goes together well with the quite new result that linear probing works with 5-independent hash functions. Recent developments suggest that the classification of hash function constructions by their degree of independence alone may not be adequate in some cases. Thus, one may want to analyze the behavior of specific hash classes in specific applications, circumventing the concept of k-wise independence. Several such results were recently achieved concerning hash functions that utilize tabulation. In particular if the analysis of the application involves using randomness properties in graphs and hypergraphs (generalized cuckoo hashing, also in the version with a "stash", or load balancing), a hash class combining k-wise independence with tabulation has turned out to be very powerful

Note on Generalized Cuckoo Hashing with a Stash

Cuckoo hashing is a common hashing technique, guaranteeing constant-time lookups in the worst case. Adding a stash was proposed by Kirsch, Mitzenmacher, and Wieder at SICOMP 2010, as a way to reduce the probability of rehash. It has since become a standard technique in areas such as cryptography, where a superpolynomially low probability of rehash is often required. Another extension of cuckoo hashing is to allow multiple items per bucket, improving the load factor. That extension was also analyzed by Kirsch et al. in the presence of a stash. The purpose of this note is to repair a bug in that analysis. Letting $d$ be the number of items per bucket, and $s$ be the stash size, the original claim was that the probability that a valid cuckoo assignment fails to exist is $O(n^{(1-d)(s+1)})$. We point to an error in the argument, and show that it is $\Theta(n^{-d-s})$.Comment: 6 pages, 0 figur

Load thresholds for cuckoo hashing with double hashing

In k-ary cuckoo hashing, each of cn objects is associated with k random buckets in a hash table of size n. An l-orientation is an assignment of objects to associated buckets such that each bucket receives at most l objects. Several works have determined load thresholds c^* = c^*(k,l) for k-ary cuckoo hashing; that is, for c c^* no l-orientation exists with high probability. A natural variant of k-ary cuckoo hashing utilizes double hashing, where, when the buckets are numbered 0,1,...,n-1, the k choices of random buckets form an arithmetic progression modulo n. Double hashing simplifies implementation and requires less randomness, and it has been shown that double hashing has the same behavior as fully random hashing in several other data structures that similarly use multiple hashes for each object. Interestingly, previous work has come close to but has not fully shown that the load threshold for k-ary cuckoo hashing is the same when using double hashing as when using fully random hashing. Specifically, previous work has shown that the thresholds for both settings coincide, except that for double hashing it was possible that o(n) objects would have been left unplaced. Here we close this open question by showing the thresholds are indeed the same, by providing a combinatorial argument that reconciles this stubborn difference

Linear probing with constant independence

Hashing with linear probing dates back to the 1950s, and is among the most studied algorithms. In recent years it has become one of the most important hash table organizations since it uses the cache of modern computers very well. Unfortunately, previous analyses rely either on complicated and space consuming hash functions, or on the unrealistic assumption of free access to a truly random hash function. Already Carter and Wegman, in their seminal paper on universal hashing, raised the question of extending their analysis to linear probing. However, we show in this paper that linear probing using a pairwise independent family may have expected logarithmic cost per operation. On the positive side, we show that 5-wise independence is enough to ensure constant expected time per operation. This resolves the question of finding a space and time efficient hash function that provably ensures good performance for linear probing