Which is the appropriate data structure?

I need a Java data structure开发者_StackOverflow中文版 that has:

• fast (O(1)) insertion
• fast removal
• fast (O(1)) max() function

What's the best data structure to use?

HashMap would almost work, but using java.util.Collections.max() is at least O(n) in the size of the map. TreeMap's insertion and removal are too slow.

Any thoughts?

O(1) insertion and O(1) max() are mutually exclusive together with the fast removal point.

A O(1) insertion collection won't have O(1) max as the collection is unsorted. A O(1) max collection has to be sorted, thus the insert is O(n). You'll have to bite the bullet and choose between the two. In both cases however, the removal should be equally fast.

If you can live with slow removal, you could have a variable saving the current highest element, compare on insert with that variable, max and insert should be O(1) then. Removal will be O(n) then though, as you have to find a new highest element in the cases where the removed element was the highest.

If you can have O(log n) insertion and removal, you can have O(1) max value with a TreeSet or a PriorityQueue. O(log n) is pretty good for most applications.

If you accept that O(log n) is still "fast" even though it isn't "fast (O(1))", then some kinds of heap-based priority queue will do it. See the comparison table for different heaps you might use.

Note that Java's library PriorityQueue isn't very exciting, it only guarantees O(n) remove(Object).

For heap-based queues "remove" can be implemented as "decreaseKey" followed by "removeMin", provided that you reserve a "negative infinity" value for the purpose. And since it's the max you want, invert all mentions of "min" to "max" and "decrease" to "increase" when reading the article...

you cannot have O(1) removal+insertion+max
proof:
assume you could, let's call this data base D
given an array A:
1. insert all elements in A to D.
2. create empty linked list L
3. while D is not empty:
3.1. x<-D.max(); D.delete(x); --all is O(1) - assumption
3.2 L.insert_first(x) -- O(1)
4. return L
in here we created a sorting algorithm which is O(n), but it is proven to be impossible! sorting is known as omega(nlog(n)). contradiction! thus, D cannot exist.

I'm very skeptical that TreeMap's log(n) insertion and deletion are too slow--log(n) time is practically constant with respect to most real applications. Even with a 1,000,000,000 elements in your tree, if it's balanced well you will only perform log(2, 1000000000) = ~30 comparisons per insertion or removal, which is comparable to what any other hash function would take.

Such a data structure would be awesome and, as far as I know, doesn't exist. Others pointed this.

But you can go beyond, if you don't care making all of this a bit more complex.

If you can "waste" some memory and some programming efforts, you can use, at the same time, different data structures, combining the pro's of each one.

For example I needed a sorted data structure but wanted to have O(1) lookups ("is the element X in the collection?"), not O(log n). I combined a TreeMap with an HashMap (which is not really O(1) but it is almost when it's not too full and the hashing function is good) and I got really good results.

For your specific case, I would go for a dynamic combination between an HashMap and a custom helper data structure. I have in my mind something very complex (hash map + variable length priority queue), but I'll go for a simple example. Just keep all the stuff in the HashMap, and then use a special field (currentMax) that only contains the max element in the map. When you insert() in your combined data structure, if the element you're going to insert is > than the current max, then you do currentMax <- elementGoingToInsert (and you insert it in the HashMap).

When you remove an element from your combined data structure, you check if it is equal to the currentMax and if it is, you remove it from the map (that's normal) and you have to find the new max (in O(n)). So you do currentMax <- findMaxInCollection().

If the max doesn't change very frequently, that's damn good, believe me.

However, don't take anything for granted. You have to struggle a bit to find the best combination between different data structures. Do your tests, learn how frequently max changes. Data structures aren't easy, and you can make a difference if you really work combining them instead of finding a magic one, that doesn't exist. :)

Cheers

Here's a degenerate answer. I noted that you hadn't specified what you consider "fast" for deletion; if O(n) is fast then the following will work. Make a class that wraps a HashSet; maintain a reference to the maximum element upon insertion. This gives the two constant time operations. For deletion, if the element you deleted is the maximum, you have to iterate through the set to find the maximum of the remaining elements.

This may sound like it's a silly answer, but in some practical situations (a generalization of) this idea could actually be useful. For example, you can still maintain the five highest values in constant time upon insertion, and whenever you delete an element that happens to occur in that set you remove it from your list-of-five, turning it into a list-of-four etcetera; when you add an element that falls in that range, you can extend it back to five. If you typically add elements much more frequently than you delete them, then it may be very rare that you need to provide a maximum when your list-of-maxima is empty, and you can restore the list of five highest elements in linear time in that case.

As already explained: for the general case, no. However, if your range of values are limited, you can use a counting sort-like algorithm to get O(1) insertion, and on top of that a linked list for moving the max pointer, thus achieving O(1) max and removal.