Is it possible to create a Minimal Perfect Hash function without a separate lookup table for a small (<64) set of keys?

问题

I recently read this article Throw away the keys: Easy, Minimal Perfect Hashing about generating a minimal perfect hash table for a known set of keys.

The article seems to assume that you need an intermediate table. Is there any other, simpler way to generate such a function if we assume that the set of keys is small (i.e. < 64).

In my case, I want to map a set of thread ID:s to a unique block of data within an array. The threads are started before the hash function is generated and stay constant during the running time of the program. The exact number of threads vary but stays fixed during the runtime of the program:

unsigned int thread_ids*;
unsigned int thread_count;
struct {
    /* Some thread specific data */
}* ThreadData;

int start_threads () {
    /* Code which starts the threads and allocates the threaddata. */
}

int f(thread_id) {
    /* return unique index into threadData */
}

int main() {
    thread_count = 64; /* This number will be small, e.g. < 64 */
    start_threads();
    ThreadData[f(thread_ids[0])]
}

回答1:

Yes, you can build a minimal perfect hash function (MPHF) at runtime. There are multiple algorithms you can use, but most of them are a bit complex to implement so I can't give you working sample code. Many are implemented in the cmph project.

The most simple one is probably BDZ. On a high level, lookup requires calculating 3 hash functions, and 3 memory accesses. If memory isn't an issue, you only need 2. It supports millions of keys. This algorithm requires a lookup table that is about 1.23 times the number of entries.

There are other algorithms, one I invented myself, the RecSplit algorithm, but I don't have a C implementation, only Java right now. Basically, the algorithms finds a way to split the set into subsets (recursively), until the subset size is 1. You need to remember how you split. The most simple solution is in fact using a lookup table for "how you split", but the table is really small, possibly only 5 integers for 64 keys. The first one to divide into 4 subsets of 16, and 4 to map each subset to a number 0..15.

(I added a second answer if you don't strictly need a minimal perfect hash function, just a perfect hash function. Construction is simpler and lookup is a lot faster, but requires a larger array.)

回答2:

You could build a perfect hash as follows, using a brute-force search. For 64 entries, the size of the target array needs to be at least 512 entries, otherwise search won't find an index within reasonable time.

The perfect hash function is then murmur(x + perfectHashIndex) & (TARGET_SIZE - 1)

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <string.h>

static uint64_t murmur64(uint64_t h) {
    h ^= h >> 33;
    h *= UINT64_C(0xff51afd7ed558ccd);
    h ^= h >> 33;
    h *= UINT64_C(0xc4ceb9fe1a85ec53);
    h ^= h >> 33;
    return h;
}

// must be a power of 2
#define TARGET_SIZE 512

static uint64_t findPerfectHashIndex(uint64_t *array, int size) {
    uint64_t used[TARGET_SIZE / 64];
    for (uint64_t index = 0; index < 1000;) {
        memset(used, 0, TARGET_SIZE / 64 * sizeof(uint64_t));
        for (size_t i = 0; i < size; i++) {
            uint64_t x = murmur64(array[i] + index) & (TARGET_SIZE - 1);
            if (((used[x >> 6] >> (x & 63)) & 1) != 0) {
                goto outer;
            }
            used[x >> 6] |= 1UL << (x & 63);
        }
        return index;
        outer:
        index++;
    }
    // not found
    return -1;
}

int main() {
    int size = 64;
    uint64_t ids[size];
    for(int i=0; i<size; i++) ids[i] = 10 * i;
    uint64_t perfectHashIndex = findPerfectHashIndex(ids, size);
    if (perfectHashIndex == -1) {
        printf("perfectHashIndex not found\n");
    } else {
        printf("perfectHashIndex = %lld\n", perfectHashIndex);
        for(int i=0; i<size; i++) {
            printf("  x[%d] = %lld, murmur(x + perfectHashIndex) & (TARGET_SIZE - 1) = %d\n", 
                i, ids[i], murmur64(ids[i] + perfectHashIndex) & (TARGET_SIZE - 1));
        }
    }
}

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55824130/is-it-possible-to-create-a-minimal-perfect-hash-function-without-a-separate-look