Fast hashing with Strong Concentration Bounds

Previous work on tabulation hashing by Patrascu and Thorup from STOC'11 on simple tabulation and from SODA'13 on twisted tabulation offered Chernoff-style concentration bounds on hash based sums, e.g., the number of balls/keys hashing to a given bin, but under some quite severe restrictions on the expected values of these sums. The basic idea in tabulation hashing is to view a key as consisting of $c=O(1)$ characters, e.g., a 64-bit key as $c=8$ characters of 8-bits. The character domain $\Sigma$ should be small enough that character tables of size $|\Sigma|$ fit in fast cache. The schemes then use $O(1)$ tables of this size, so the space of tabulation hashing is $O(|\Sigma|)$. However, the concentration bounds by Patrascu and Thorup only apply if the expected sums are $\ll |\Sigma|$. To see the problem, consider the very simple case where we use tabulation hashing to throw $n$ balls into $m$ bins and want to analyse the number of balls in a given bin. With their concentration bounds, we are fine if $n=m$, for then the expected value is $1$. However, if $m=2$, as when tossing $n$ unbiased coins, the expected value $n/2$ is $\gg |\Sigma|$ for large data sets, e.g., data sets that do not fit in fast cache. To handle expectations that go beyond the limits of our small space, we need a much more advanced analysis of simple tabulation, plus a new tabulation technique that we call \emph{tabulation-permutation} hashing which is at most twice as slow as simple tabulation. No other hashing scheme of comparable speed offers similar Chernoff-style concentration bounds.Comment: 54 pages, 3 figures. An extended abstract appeared at the 52nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC20

Cuckoo hashing

We present a simple dictionary with worst case constant lookup time, equaling the theoretical performance of the classic dynamic perfect hashing scheme of Dietzfelbinger et al. (Dynamic perfect hashing: Upper and lower bounds. SIAM J. Comput., 23(4):738–761, 1994). The space usage is similar to that of binary search trees, i.e., three words per key on average. Besides being conceptually much simpler than previous dynamic dictionaries with worst case constant lookup time, our data structure is interesting in that it does not use perfect hashing, but rather a variant of open addressing where keys can be moved back in their probe sequences. An implementation inspired by our algorithm, but using weaker hash functions, is found to be quite practical. It is competitive with the best known dictionaries having an average case (but no nontrivial worst case) guarantee