A Back-to-Basics Empirical Study of Priority Queues

The theory community has proposed several new heap variants in the recent past which have remained largely untested experimentally. We take the field back to the drawing board, with straightforward implementations of both classic and novel structures using only standard, well-known optimizations. We study the behavior of each structure on a variety of inputs, including artificial workloads, workloads generated by running algorithms on real map data, and workloads from a discrete event simulator used in recent systems networking research. We provide observations about which characteristics are most correlated to performance. For example, we find that the L1 cache miss rate appears to be strongly correlated with wallclock time. We also provide observations about how the input sequence affects the relative performance of the different heap variants. For example, we show (both theoretically and in practice) that certain random insertion-deletion sequences are degenerate and can lead to misleading results. Overall, our findings suggest that while the conventional wisdom holds in some cases, it is sorely mistaken in others

Hollow Heaps

We introduce the hollow heap, a very simple data structure with the same amortized efficiency as the classical Fibonacci heap. All heap operations except delete and delete-min take $O(1)$ time, worst case as well as amortized; delete and delete-min take $O(\log n)$ amortized time on a heap of $n$ items. Hollow heaps are by far the simplest structure to achieve this. Hollow heaps combine two novel ideas: the use of lazy deletion and re-insertion to do decrease-key operations, and the use of a dag (directed acyclic graph) instead of a tree or set of trees to represent a heap. Lazy deletion produces hollow nodes (nodes without items), giving the data structure its name.Comment: 27 pages, 7 figures, preliminary version appeared in ICALP 201

Why some heaps support constant-amortized-time decrease-key operations, and others do not

A lower bound is presented which shows that a class of heap algorithms in the pointer model with only heap pointers must spend Omega(log log n / log log log n) amortized time on the decrease-key operation (given O(log n) amortized-time extract-min). Intuitively, this bound shows the key to having O(1)-time decrease-key is the ability to sort O(log n) items in O(log n) time; Fibonacci heaps [M.L. Fredman and R. E. Tarjan. J. ACM 34(3):596-615 (1987)] do this through the use of bucket sort. Our lower bound also holds no matter how much data is augmented; this is in contrast to the lower bound of Fredman [J. ACM 46(4):473-501 (1999)] who showed a tradeoff between the number of augmented bits and the amortized cost of decrease-key. A new heap data structure, the sort heap, is presented. This heap is a simplification of the heap of Elmasry [SODA 2009: 471-476] and shares with it a O(log log n) amortized-time decrease-key, but with a straightforward implementation such that our lower bound holds. Thus a natural model is presented for a pointer-based heap such that the amortized runtime of a self-adjusting structure and amortized lower asymptotic bounds for decrease-key differ by but a O(log log log n) factor