No sorting? better searching!

Abstract

Questions about order versus disorder in systems and models have been fascinating scientists over the years. In computer science, order is intimately related to sorting, commonly meant as the task of arranging keys in increasing or decreasing order with respect to an underlying total order relation. The sorted organization is amenable for searching a set of n keys, since each search requires Θ(log n) comparisons in the worst case, which is optimal if the cost of a single comparison can be considered a constant. Nevertheless, we prove that disorder implicitly provides more information than order does. For the general case of searching an array of multidimensional keys whose comparison cost is proportional to their length (and hence which cannot be considered a constant), we demonstrate that “suitable” disorder gives better bounds than those derivable by using the natural lexicographic order.

We start from previous work done by Andersson et al. [2001], who proved that Θ(k log log n/log log(4 + klog log n/log n) + k + log n) character comparisons (or probes) comprise the tight complexity for searching a plain sorted array of n keys, each of length k, arranged in lexicographic order. We describe a novel permutation of the n keys that is different from the sorted order. When keys are kept “unsorted” in the array according to this permutation, the complexity of searching drops to Θ(k + log n) character comparisons (or probes) in the worst case, which is optimal among all possible permutations, up to a constant factor. Consequently, disorder carries more information than does order; this fact was not observable before, since the latter two bounds are Θ(log n) when k = O(1). More implications are discussed in the article, including searching in the bit-probe model.

References

1. Andersson, A., Hagerup, T., Håstad, J., and Petersson, O. 2001. Tight bounds for searching a sorted array of strings. SIAM J. Comput. 30, 5 (Oct.), 1552--1578.
2. Andersson, A., Håstad, J., and Petersson, O. 1995. A tight lower bound for searching a sorted array. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC). ACM Press.
3. Andersson, A., Hagerup, T., Håstad, J., and Petersson, O. 1994. The complexity of searching a sorted array of strings. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), Montreal, Quebec, Canada. ACM Press, 317--325.
4. Bentley, J. L., and Sedgewick, R. 1997. Fast algorithms for sorting and searching strings. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), New Orleans, LA. ACM Press, 360--369.
5. Elias, P., and Flower, R. A. 1975. The complexity of some simple retrieval problems. J. ACM 22, 3, 367--379.
6. Fiat, A., and Naor, M. 1993. Implicit O(1) probe search. SIAM J. Comput. 22, 1, 1--10.
7. Fiat, A., and Naor, M. 1989. Implicit O(1) probe search. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), Seattle, WA. ACM Press, 336--344.
8. Fiat, A., Naor, M., Schmidt, J. P., and Siegel, A. 1992. Nonoblivious hashing. J. ACM 39, 4 (Oct.), 764--782.
9. Fiat, A., Munro, J. I., Naor, M., Schäffer, A. A., Schmidt, J. P., and Siegel, A. 1991. An implicit data structure for searching a multikey table in logarithmic time. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 43, 3 (Dec.), 406--424.
10. Fiat, A., Naor, M., Schmidt, J., and Siegel, A. 1988. Non-Oblivious hashing. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), Chicago. IL. ACM Press, 367--376.
11. Fredman, M. L., Komlós, J., and Szemerédi, E. 1984. Storing a sparse table with O(1) worst case access time. J. ACM 31, 3, 538--544.
12. Hirschberg, D. S. 1980. On the complexity of searching a set of vectors. SIAM J. Comput. 9, 1, 126--129.
13. Hirschberg, D. S. 1978. A lower worst-case complexity for searching a dictionary. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, 50--53.
14. Knuth, D. E. 1998. The Art of Computer Programming III: Sorting and Searching (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
15. Kosaraju, S. R. 1979. On a multidimensional search problem. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), 67--73.
16. Manber, U., and Myers, G. 1993. Suffix arrays: A new method for on-line string searches. SIAM J. Comput. 22, 5 (Oct.), 935--948.
17. Munro, J. I. 1986. An implicit data structure supporting insertion, deletion, and search in O(log² n) time. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 33, 1, 66--74.
18. Munro, J. I., and Suwanda, H. 1980. Implicit data structures for fast search and update. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 21, 2, 236--250.
19. Yao, A. C. 1984. Should tables be sorted? J. ACM 31, 245--281.

Index Terms

• Information systems

  • Data management systems

    • Data structures

  • Information retrieval

    • Document representation

      • Dictionaries

  • Information storage systems

    • Record storage systems

• Software and its engineering

  • Software notations and tools

    • General programming languages

      • Language features

        • Data types and structures

• Theory of computation

  • Design and analysis of algorithms

    • Data structures design and analysis

      • Sorting and searching

  • Theory and algorithms for application domains

    • Database theory

      • Data structures and algorithms for data management