# Maps as Hash Tables

Arrays offer constant time performance, but come with severe restrictions on keys. Association lists don't place those restrictions on keys, but they also don't offer constant time performance. Is there a way to get the best of both worlds? Yes (more or less)! Hash tables are the solution.

The key idea is that we assume the existence of a hash function hash : 'a -> int that can convert any key to a non-negative integer. Then we can use that function to index into an array, as we did with direct address tables. Of course, we want the hash function itself to run in constant time, otherwise the operations that use it would not be efficient.

One immediate problem with this idea is what to do if the output of the hash is not within the bounds of the array. It's easy to solve this: if a is the length of the array then computing (hash k) mod a will return an index that is within bounds.

Another problem is what to do if the hash function is not injective, meaning that it is not one-to-one. Then multiple keys could collide and need to be stored at the same index in the array. That's okay! We deliberately allow that. But it does mean we need a strategy for what to do when keys collide.

Collisions. There are two well-known strategies for dealing with collisions. One is to store multiple bindings at each array index. The array elements are called buckets. Typically, the bucket is implemented as a linked list. This strategy is known by many names, including chaining, closed addressing, and open hashing. We'll use chaining as the name. To check whether an element is in the hash table, the key is first hashed to find the correct bucket to look in. Then, the linked list is scanned to see if the desired element is present. If the linked list is short, this scan is very quick. An element is added or removed by hashing it to find the correct bucket. Then, the bucket is checked to see if the element is there, and finally the element is added or removed appropriately from the bucket in the usual way for linked lists.

The other strategy is to store bindings at places other than their proper location according to the hash. When adding a new binding to the hash table would create a collision, the insert operation instead finds an empty location in the array to put the binding. This strategy is (confusingly) known as probing, open addressing, and closed hashing. We'll use probing as the name. A simple way to find an empty location is to search ahead through the array indices with a fixed stride (often 1), looking for an unused entry; this linear probing strategy tends to produce a lot of clustering of elements in the table, leading to bad performance. A better strategy is to use a second hash function to compute the probing interval; this strategy is called double hashing. Regardless of how probing is implemented, however, the time required to search for or add an element grows rapidly as the hash table fills up.

Chaining is usually preferred over probing in software implementations, because it's easier to implement the linked lists in software. Hardware implementations have often used probing, when the size of the table is fixed by circuitry. But ssome modern software implementations are rexamining the benefits of probing.

## Hash table interface

module type TableMap = sig
(** [('k, 'v) t] is the type of mutable table-based maps that
bind keys of type ['k] to values of type ['v]. *)
type ('k, 'v) t

(** [insert k v m] mutates map [m] to bind [k] to [v]. If
[k] was already bound in [m], that binding is replaced
by the binding to [v]. *)
val insert : 'k -> 'v -> ('k, 'v) t -> unit

(** [find k m] is [Some v] if [m] binds [k] to [v], and
[None] if [m] does not bind [k]. *)
val find : 'k -> ('k, 'v) t -> 'v option

(** [remove k m] mutates [m] to remove any binding of [k].
If [k] was not bound in [m], the map is unchanged. *)
val remove : 'k -> ('k, 'v) t -> unit

(** [create hash c] creates a new table map with capacity [c]
that will use [hash] as the function to convert keys to
integers.
Requires: [hash] distributes keys uniformly over integers,
and the output of [hash] is always non-negative, and [hash]
runs in constant time. *)
val create : ('k -> int) -> int -> ('k, 'v) t

(** [bindings m] is an association list containing the same bindings as [m].
*)
val bindings : ('k, 'v) t -> ('k * 'v) list

(** [of_list hash lst] creates a map with the same bindings as [lst], using
[hash] as the hash function.
Requires: [lst] does not contain any duplicate keys. *)
val of_list : ('k -> int) -> ('k * 'v) list -> ('k, 'v) t
end


## Hash table representation type

Here is a representation type for a hash table that uses chaining:

type ('k,'v) t = {
hash : 'k -> int;
mutable size : int;
mutable buckets : ('k * 'v) list array
}


The buckets array has elements that are association lists, which store the bindings. The hash function is used to determine which bucket a key goes into. The size is used to keep track of the number of bindings currently in the table, since that would be expensive to compute by iterating over buckets.

Here are the AF and RI:

  (** AF:  If [buckets] is
[| [(k11,v11); (k12,v12); ...];
[(k21,v21); (k22,v22); ...];
... |]
that represents the map
{k11:v11, k12:v12, ...,
k21:v21, k22:v22, ...,  ...}.
RI: No key appears more than once in array (so, no
duplicate keys in association lists).  All keys are
in the right buckets: if [k] is in [buckets] at index
[b] then [hash(k) = b]. The output of [hash] must always
be non-negative. [hash] must run in constant time.*)


What would the efficiency of insert, find, and remove be for this rep type? All require hashing the key (constant time), indexing into the appropriate bucket (constant time), and finding out whether the key is already in the association list (linear in the number of elements in that list). So the efficiency of the hash table depends on the number of elements in each bucket. That, in turn, is determined by how well the hash function distributes keys across all the buckets.

A terrible hash function, such as the constant function fun k -> 42, would put all keys into same bucket. Then every operation would be linear in the number $n$ of bindings in the map—that is, $O(n)$. We definitely don't want that.

Instead, we want hash functions that distribute keys more or less randomly across the buckets. Then the expected length of every bucket will be about the same. If we could arrange that, on average, the bucket length were a constant $L$, then insert, find, and remove would all in expectation run in time $O(L)$.

How could we arrange for buckets to have expected constant length? To answer that, let's think about the number of bindings and buckets in the table. Define the load factor of the table to be (# bindings) / (# buckets). So a table with 20 bindings and 10 buckets has a load factor of 2, and a table with 10 bindings and 20 buckets has a load factor of 0.5. The load factor is therefore the average number of bindings in a bucket. So if we could keep the load factor constant, we could keep $L$ constant, thereby keeping the performance to (expected) constant time.

Toward that end, note that the number of bindings is not under the control of the hash table implementer—but the number of buckets is. So by changing the number of buckets, the implementer can change the load factor. A common strategy is to keep the load factor from approximately 1/2 to 2. Then each bucket contains only a couple bindings, and expected constant-time performance is guaranteed.

There's no way for the implementer to know in advance, though, exactly how many buckets will be needed. So instead, the implementer will have to resize the bucket array whenever the load factor gets too high. Typically the newly allocated bucket will be of a size to restore the load factor to about 1.

Putting those two ideas together, if the load factor reaches 2, then there are twice as many bindings as buckets in the table. So by doubling the size of the array, we can restore the load factor to 1. Similarly, if the load factor reaches 1/2, then there are twice as many buckets as bindings, and halving the size of the array will restore the load factor to 1.

Resizing the bucket array to become larger is an essential technique for hash tables. Resizing it to become smaller, though, is not essential. As long as the load factor is bounded by a constant from above, we can achieve expected constant bucket length. So not all implementations will reduce the size of the array. Although doing so would recover some space, it might not be worth the effort. That's especially true if the size of the hash table is cyclic: although sometimes it becomes smaller, eventually it becomes bigger again.

Unfortunately, resizing would seem to ruin our expected constant-time performance though. Insertion of a binding might cause the load factor to go over 2, thus causing a resize. When the resize occurs, all the existing bindings must be rehashed and added to the new bucket array. Thus, insertion has become a worst-case linear time operation! The same is true for removal, if we resize the array to become smaller when the load factor is too low.

## Hash table implementation

module HashMap : TableMap = struct

(** AF and RI: above *)
type ('k, 'v) t = {
hash : 'k -> int;
mutable size : int;
mutable buckets : ('k * 'v) list array
}

(** [capacity tab] is the number of buckets in [tab].
Efficiency: O(1) *)
let capacity {buckets} =
Array.length buckets

(** [load_factor tab] is the load factor of [tab], i.e., the number of
bindings divided by the number of buckets. *)
float_of_int tab.size /. float_of_int (capacity tab)

(** Efficiency: O(n) *)
let create hash n =
{hash; size = 0; buckets = Array.make n []}

(** [index k tab] is the index at which key [k] should be stored in the
buckets of [tab].
Efficiency: O(1) *)
let index k tab =
(tab.hash k) mod (capacity tab)

(** [insert_no_resize k v tab] inserts a binding from [k] to [v] in [tab]
and does not resize the table, regardless of what happens to the
Efficiency: expected O(L) *)
let insert_no_resize k v tab =
let b = index k tab in (* O(1) *)
let old_bucket = tab.buckets.(b) in
tab.buckets.(b) <- (k,v) :: List.remove_assoc k old_bucket; (* O(L) *)
if not (List.mem_assoc k old_bucket) then
tab.size <- tab.size + 1;
()

(** [rehash tab new_capacity] replaces the buckets array of [tab] with a new
array of size [new_capacity], and re-inserts all the bindings of [tab]
into the new array.  The keys are re-hashed, so the bindings will
likely land in different buckets.
Efficiency: O(n), where n is the number of bindings. *)
let rehash tab new_capacity =
(* insert (k, v) into tab *)
let rehash_binding (k, v) =
insert_no_resize k v tab
in
(* insert all bindings of bucket into tab *)
let rehash_bucket bucket =
List.iter rehash_binding bucket
in
let old_buckets = tab.buckets in
tab.buckets <- Array.make new_capacity []; (* O(n) *)
tab.size <- 0;
(* [rehash_binding] is called by [rehash_bucket] once for every binding *)
Array.iter rehash_bucket old_buckets (* expected O(n) *)

(* [resize_if_needed tab] resizes and rehashes [tab] if the load factor
is too big or too small.  Load factors are allowed to range from
1/2 to 2. *)
let resize_if_needed tab =
let lf = load_factor tab in
if lf > 2.0 then
rehash tab (capacity tab * 2)
else if lf < 0.5 then
rehash tab (capacity tab / 2)
else ()

(** Efficiency: O(n) *)
let insert k v tab =
insert_no_resize k v tab; (* O(L) *)
resize_if_needed tab (* O(n) *)

(** Efficiency: expected O(L) *)
let find k tab =
List.assoc_opt k tab.buckets.(index k tab)

(** [remove_no_resize k tab] removes [k] from [tab] and does not trigger
a resize, regardless of what happens to the load factor.
Efficiency: expected O(L) *)
let remove_no_resize k tab =
let b = index k tab in
let old_bucket = tab.buckets.(b) in
tab.buckets.(b) <- List.remove_assoc k tab.buckets.(b);
if List.mem_assoc k old_bucket then
tab.size <- tab.size - 1;
()

(** Efficiency: O(n) *)
let remove k tab =
remove_no_resize k tab; (* O(L) *)
resize_if_needed tab (* O(n) *)

(** Efficiency: O(n) *)
let bindings tab =
Array.fold_left
(fun acc bucket ->
List.fold_left
(* 1 cons for every binding, which is O(n) *)
(fun acc (k,v) -> (k,v) :: acc)
acc bucket)
[] tab.buckets

(** Efficiency: O(n^2) *)
let of_list hash lst =
let m = create hash (List.length lst) in  (* O(n) *)
List.iter (fun (k, v) -> insert k v m) lst; (* n * O(n) is O(n^2) *)
m
end


An optimization of rehash is possible. When it calls insert_no_resize to re-insert a binding, extra work is being done: there's no need for that insertion to call remove_assoc or mem_assoc, because we are guaranteed the binding does not contain a duplicate key. We could omit that work. If the hash function is good, it's only a constant amount of work that we save. But if the hash function is bad and doesn't distribute keys uniformly, that could be an important optimization.

## Hash functions

Hash tables are one of the most useful data structures ever invented. Unfortunately, they are also one of the most misused. Code built using hash tables often falls far short of achievable performance. There are two reasons for this:

• Clients choose poor hash functions that do not distribute keys randomly over buckets.

• Hash table abstractions do not adequately specify what is required of the hash function, or make it difficult to provide a good hash function.

Clearly, a bad hash function can destroy our attempts at a constant running time. A lot of obvious hash function choices are bad. For example, if we're mapping names to phone numbers, then hashing each name to its length would be a very poor function, as would a hash function that used only the first name, or only the last name. We want our hash function to use all of the information in the key. This is a bit of an art. While hash tables are extremely effective when used well, all too often poor hash functions are used that sabotage performance.

Hash tables work well when the hash function looks random. If it is to look random, this means that any change to a key, even a small one, should change the bucket index in an apparently random way. If we imagine writing the bucket index as a binary number, a small change to the key should randomly flip the bits in the bucket index. This is called information diffusion. For example, a one-bit change to the key should cause every bit in the index to flip with 1/2 probability.

Client vs. implementer. As we've described it, the hash function is a single function that maps from the key type to a bucket index. In practice, the hash function is the composition of two functions, one provided by the client and one by the implementer. This is because the implementer doesn't understand the element type, the client doesn't know how many buckets there are, and the implementer probably doesn't trust the client to achieve diffusion.

The client function hash_c first converts the key into an integer hash code, and the implementation function hash_i converts the hash code into a bucket index. The actual hash function is the composition of these two functions. As a hash table designer, you need to figure out which of the client hash function and the implementation hash function is going to provide diffusion. If clients are sufficiently savvy, it makes sense to push the diffusion onto them, leaving the hash table implementation as simple and fast as possible. The easy way to accomplish this is to break the computation of the bucket index into three steps.

1. Serialization: Transform the key into a stream of bytes that contains all of the information in the original key. Two equal keys must result in the same byte stream. Two byte streams should be equal only if the keys are actually equal. How to do this depends on the form of the key. If the key is a string, then the stream of bytes would simply be the characters of the string.

2. Diffusion: Map the stream of bytes into a large integer x in a way that causes every change in the stream to affect the bits of x apparently randomly. There is a tradeoff in performance versus randomness (and security) here.

3. Compute the hash bucket index as x mod m. This is particularly cheap if m is a power of two.

Unfortunately, hash table implementations are rarely forthcoming about what they assume of client hash functions. So it can be hard to know, as a client, how to get good performance from a table. The more information the implementation can provide to a client about how well distributed keys are in buckets, the better. OCaml's Hashtbl includes a function to get statistics about the bucket distribution, which can be helpful in diagnosing whether the hash function is providing adequate diffusion.