Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
We don't bite newbies here... much
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Scaling Hash Limits

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Sep 19, 2013 at 15:30 UTC ( #1054867=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Scaling Hash Limits
in thread Scaling Hash Limits

12-digit id numbers

Do you know the approximate lowest and highest numbers?

If so, you can reduce the memory requirement for de-duping your 180 million ids from ~ 4 gigabytes to ~ 8 megabytes.

And make it much faster also.


With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.


Comment on Re^3: Scaling Hash Limits
Re^4: Scaling Hash Limits
by Laurent_R (Parson) on Sep 20, 2013 at 22:13 UTC

    Hi BrowserUk, you're making a very interesting point, which nobody seems to have picked up so far. I can see two ways of significantly reducing the memory required for the task at hand. One is that we probably don't need to worry about 12-digit numbers if we can narrow down the ID range really needed to something of the order of, say, about 200 to 250 million numbers, which seems to be a reasonable hypothesis if the IDs are allocated sequentially by the system. Then once we have such a narrower range, we only basically need only one bit per number in the range, and we just need to set one bit if a particular number has already been seen (so 1 bit per number in the range). These two observations could drive the memory requirement to perhaps 30 megabytes, if I can still think clearly this late in the evening, but I can't see how to reduce this memory requirement to only 4 megabytes 8 megabytes. I would be grateful if you could enlighten me on this, and I am sure many others would benefit from these ideas.

    Update: corrected my error of inattention: BrowserUk said 8 megabytes, not 4 megabytes.

      but I can't see how to reduce this memory requirement to only 4 megabytes.

      I said ~ 8 megabytes not 4.

      In Scaling Hash Limits the OP said: "my simple hash of scalars (for duplicate detection) hits a size of over 55 million"

      55 million / 8 / 1024**2 = 6.55651092529296875 MB.

      He also mentions 180 million: 180e6 / 8 / 1024**2 = 21.457672119140625 MB. But that's before de-duping, the purpose of the exercise. But its possible his list contains no duplicates.

      Of course, looking around I see that twitter uses 64-bit numbers for their user ids. And that it 20 digits not 12. Then again, they are only just now claiming 500 million users which is: 500e6 / 8 / 1024**2 = 59.604644775390625 MB which should be handleable by any modern machine with ease.

      Of course, it is also possible that they do not use sequential numbers for their IDs, but rather the 64-bit number is a hash of some aspect of the account -- the name or similar -- in which case the idea won't work because 2**64 / 8 / 1024**3 ~= 2 billion GB.

      But if that were the case, the OP probably wouldn't be talking about "12-digit numbers".

      Of course, the OP also doesn't explicitly mention 'user' ids, just "ids", and given the number -- 180 million; roughly the number of twits per day currently -- these could be message ids; which probably are allocated sequentially?

      Had the OP deigned to answer a couple of questions, much of the uncertainty could have been resolved.


      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        Thank you for your interesting answer, BrowserUk, I can see that we are thinking of more or less the same type of techniques. It is just that the OP did not provide enough detailed information for us to be able to make very accurate predictions on what it would take. My own understanding was that the IDs probably referred to message IDs, thus making sequential allocation quite plausible, but, of course, we don't know for sure.

        Thank you for this pointer to the other post, I had not seen the other post before.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1054867]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (12)
As of 2014-11-24 18:23 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My preferred Perl binaries come from:














    Results (144 votes), past polls