We Keep Coding

Using tuples in a linked list in python

My teacher wants us to recreate the dict class in Python using tuples and linkedlists (for collisions). One of the methods is used to return a value given a key. I know how to do this in a tuple ( find the key at location[0] and return location[1]) but I have no idea how I would do this in the case of a collision. Any suggestions? If more info is needed please let me know

It sounds like you have some sort of hash to get a shortlist of possibilities, so, you hash your key to a small-ish number, e.g. 0-256 (as an example, it might hash to 63). You can then go directly to your data at index 63. Because you might have more than one item that hashes to 63, your entry for 63 will contain a list of (key,value) pairs, that you would have to search one by one - effectively, you've reduced your search area by 255/256th of the full list. Optionally, when the collisions for a particular key exceeds a threshold, you could repeat the process - so you get mydict[63][92], again reducing the problem size by the same factor. You could repeat this indefinitely.

Python Efficiency of the in statement

Just a quick question, I know that when looking up entries in a dictionary there's a fast efficient way of doing it:
(Assuming the dictionary is ordered in some way using collections.OrderedDict())
You start at the middle of the dictionary, and find whether the desired key is off to one half or another, such as when testing the position of a name in an alphabetically ordered dictionary (or in rare cases dead on). You then check the next half, and continue this pattern until the item is found (meaning that with a dictionary of 1000000 keys you could effectively find any key within 20 iterations of this algorithm).
So I was wondering, if I were to use an in statement (i.e. if a in somedict:), would it use this same method of checking for the desired key? Does it use a faster/slower algorithm?

Nope. Python's dictionaries basically use a hash table (it actually uses an modified hash table to improve speed) (I won't bother to explain a hash table; the linked Wikipedia article describes it well) which is a neat structure which allows ~O(1) (very fast) access. in looks up the object (the same thing that dict[object] does) except it doesn't return the object, which is the most optimal way of doing it.
The code for in for dictionaries contains this line (dk_lookup() returns a hash table entry if it exists, otherwise NULL (the equivalent of None in C, often indicating an error)):
ep = (mp->ma_keys->dk_lookup)(mp, key, hash, &value_addr);

Dictionary into dictionary in python

Ok, this one should be simple. I have 3 dictionaries. They are all made, ordered, and filled to my satisfaction but I would like to put them all in an overarching dictionary so I can reference and manipulate them more easily and efficiently.
Layer0 = {}
Layer1 = {}
Layer2 = {}
here they are when created, and afterwards I feebly tried different things based on SO questions:
Layers = {Layer0, Layer1, Layer2}
which raised a syntax error
Layers = {'Layer0', 'Layer1', 'Layer2'}
which raised another syntax error
(Layers is the Dictionary I'm trying to create that will have all the previously made dictionaries within it)
All the other examples I found on SO have been related to creating dictionaries within dictionaries in order to fill them (or filling them simultaneously) and since I already coded a large number of lines to make these dictionaries, I'd rather put them into a dictionary after the fact instead of re-writing code.
It would be best if the order of the dictionaries are preserved when put into Layers
Does anyone know if this is possible and how I should do it?

Dictionary items have both a key and a value.
Layers = {'Layer0': Layer0, 'Layer1': Layer1, 'Layer2': Layer2}

Keep in mind that dictionaries don't have an order, since a dictionary is a hash table (i.e. a mapping from your key names to a unique hash value). Using .keys() or .values() generates a list, which does have an order, but the dictionary itself doesn't.
So when you say "It would be best if the order of the dictionaries are preserved when put into Layers" - this doesn't really mean anything. For example, if you rename your dictionaries from "Layer1, Layer2, Layer3" to "A, B, C," you'll see that Layers.keys() prints in the order "A, C, B." This is true regardless of the order you used when building the dictionary. All this shows is that the hash value of "C" is less than that of "B," and it doesn't tell you anything about the structure of your dictionary.
This is also why you can't directly iterate over a dictionary (you have to iterate over e.g. a list of the keys).
As a side note, this hash function is what allows a dictionary to do crazy fast lookups. A good hash function will give you constant time [O(1)] lookup, meaning you can check if a given item is in your dictionary in the same amount of time whether the dictionary contains ten items or ten million. Pretty cool.

What is a hashtable/dictionary implementation for Python that doesn't store the keys?

I'm storing millions, possibly billions of 4 byte values in a hashtable and I don't want to store any of the keys. I expect that only the hashes of the keys and the values will have to be stored. This has to be fast and all kept in RAM. The entries would still be looked up with the key, unlike set()'s.
What is an implementation of this for Python? Is there a name for this?
Yes, collisions are allowed and can be ignored.
(I can make an exception for collisions, the key can be stored for those. Alternatively, collisions can just overwrite the previously stored value.)

Bloomier filters - space-efficient associative array
From the Wikipedia:
Chazelle et al. (2004) designed a
generalization of Bloom filters that
could associate a value with each
element that had been inserted,
implementing an associative array.
Like Bloom filters, these structures
achieve a small space overhead by
accepting a small probability of false
positives. In the case of "Bloomier
filters", a false positive is defined
as returning a result when the key is
not in the map. The map will never
return the wrong value for a key that
is in the map.

How about using an ordinary dictionary and instead of doing:
d[x]=y
use:
d[hash(x)]=y
To look up:
d[hash(foo)]
Of course, if there is a hash collision, you may get the wrong value back.

Its the good old space vs runtime tradeoff: You can have constant time with linear space usage for the keys in a hastable. Or you can store the key implicitly and use log n time by using a binary tree. The (binary) hash of a value gives you the path in the tree where it will be stored.

Build your own b-tree in RAM.
Memory use:
(4 bytes) comparison hash value
(4 bytes) index of next leaf if hash <= comparison OR if negative index of value
(4 bytes) index of next leaf if hash > comparison OR if negative index of value
12 bytes per b-tree node for the b-tree. More overhead for the values (see below).
How you structure this in Python - aren't there "native arrays" of 32bit integers upported with almost no extra memory overhead...? what are they called... anyway those.
Separate ordered array of subarrays each containing one or more values. The "indexes of value" above are indexes into this big array, allowing retrieval of all values matching the hash.
This assumes a 32bit hash. You will need more bytes per b-tree node if you have
greater than 2^31-1 entries or a larger hash.
BUT Spanner in the works perhaps: Note that you will not be able, if you are not storing the key values, to verify that a hash value looked up corresponds only to your key unless through some algorithmic or organisational mechanism you have guaranteed that no two keys will have the same hash. Quite a serious issue here. Have you considered it? :)

Although python dictionaries are very efficient, I think that if you're going to store billions of items, you may want to create your own C extension with data structures, optimized for the way you are actually using it (sequential access? completely random? etc).
In order to create a C extension, you may want to use SWIG, or something like Pyrex (which I've never used).

Hash table has to store keys, unless you provide a hash function that gives absolutely no collisions, which is nearly impossible.
There is, however, if your keys are string-like, there is a very space-efficient data structure - directed acyclic word graph (DAWG). I don't know any Python implementation though.

It's not what you asked for buy why not consider Tokyo Cabinet or BerkleyDB for this job? It won't be in memory but you are trading performance for greater storage capacity. You could still keep your list in memory and use the database only to check existence.

Would you please tell us more about the keys? I'm wondering if there is any regularity in the keys that we could exploit.
If the keys are strings in a small alphabet (example: strings of digits, like phone numbers) you could use a trie data structure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trie

If you're actually storing millions of unique values, why not use a dictionary?
Store: d[hash(key)/32] |= 2**(hash(key)%32)
Check: (d[hash(key)/32] | 2**(hash(key)%32))
If you have billions of entries, use a numpy array of size (2**32)/32, instead. (Because, after all, you only have 4 billion possible values to store, anyway).

Why not a dictionary + hashlib?
>>> import hashlib
>>> hashtable = {}
>>> def myHash(obj):
return hashlib.sha224(obj).hexdigest()
>>> hashtable[myHash("foo")] = 'bar'
>>> hashtable
{'0808f64e60d58979fcb676c96ec938270dea42445aeefcd3a4e6f8db': 'bar'}

What is the best way to store set data in Python?

I have a list of data in the following form:
[(id\__1_, description, id\_type), (id\__2_, description, id\_type), ... , (id\__n_, description, id\_type))
The data are loaded from files that belong to the same group. In each group there could be multiples of the same id, each coming from different files. I don't care about the duplicates, so I thought that a nice way to store all of this would be to throw it into a Set type. But there's a problem.
Sometimes for the same id the descriptions can vary slightly, as follows:
IPI00110753
Tubulin alpha-1A chain
Tubulin alpha-1 chain
Alpha-tubulin 1
Alpha-tubulin isotype M-alpha-1
(Note that this example is taken from the uniprot protein database.)
I don't care if the descriptions vary. I cannot throw them away because there is a chance that the protein database I am using will not contain a listing for a certain identifier. If this happens I will want to be able to display the human readable description to the biologists so they know roughly what protein they are looking at.
I am currently solving this problem by using a dictionary type. However I don't really like this solution because it uses a lot of memory (I have a lot of these ID's). This is only an intermediary listing of them. There is some additional processing the ID's go through before they are placed in the database so I would like to keep my data-structure smaller.
I have two questions really. First, will I get a smaller memory footprint using the Set type (over the dictionary type) for this, or should I use a sorted list where I check every time I insert into the list to see if the ID exists, or is there a third solution that I haven't thought of? Second, if the Set type is the better answer how do I key it to look at just the first element of the tuple instead of the whole thing?
Thank you for reading my question,
Tim
Update
based on some of the comments I received let me clarify a little. Most of what I do with data-structure is insert into it. I only read it twice, once to annotate it with additional information,* and once to do be inserted into the database. However down the line there may be additional annotation that is done before I insert into the database. Unfortunately I don't know if that will happen at this time.
Right now I am looking into storing this data in a structure that is not based on a hash-table (ie. a dictionary). I would like the new structure to be fairly quick on insertion, but reading it can be linear since I only really do it twice. I am trying to move away from the hash table to save space. Is there a better structure or is a hash-table about as good as it gets?
*The information is a list of Swiss-Prot protein identifiers that I get by querying uniprot.

Sets don't have keys. The element is the key.
If you think you want keys, you have a mapping. More-or-less by definition.
Sequential list lookup can be slow, even using a binary search. Mappings use hashes and are fast.
Are you talking about a dictionary like this?
{ 'id1': [ ('description1a', 'type1'), ('description1b','type1') ],
'id2': [ ('description2', 'type2') ],
...
}
This sure seems minimal. ID's are only represented once.
Perhaps you have something like this?
{ 'id1': ( ('description1a', 'description1b' ), 'type1' ),
'id2': ( ('description2',), 'type2' ),
...
}
I'm not sure you can find anything more compact unless you resort to using the struct module.

I'm assuming the problem you try to solve by cutting down on the memory you use is the address space limit of your process. Additionally you search for a data structure that allows you fast insertion and reasonable sequential read out.
Use less structures except strings (str)
The question you ask is how to structure your data in one process to use less memory. The one canonical answer to this is (as long as you still need associative lookups), use as little other structures then python strings (str, not unicode) as possible. A python hash (dictionary) stores the references to your strings fairly efficiently (it is not a b-tree implementation).
However I think that you will not get very far with that approach, since what you face are huge datasets that might eventually just exceed the process address space and the physical memory of the machine you're working with altogether.
Alternative Solution
I would propose a different solution that does not involve changing your data structure to something that is harder to insert or interprete.
Split your information up in multiple processes, each holding whatever datastructure is convinient for that.
Implement inter process communication with sockets such that processes might reside on other machines altogether.
Try to divide your data such as to minimize inter process communication (i/o is glacially slow compared to cpu cycles).
The advantage of the approach I outline is that
You get to use two ore more cores on a machine fully for performance
You are not limited by the address space of one process, or even the physical memory of one machine
There are numerous packages and aproaches to distributed processing, some of which are
linda
processing

If you're doing an n-way merge with removing duplicates, the following may be what you're looking for.
This generator will merge any number of sources. Each source must be a sequence.
The key must be in position 0. It yields the merged sequence one item at a time.
def merge( *sources ):
keyPos= 0
for s in sources:
s.sort()
while any( [len(s)>0 for s in sources] ):
topEnum= enumerate([ s[0][keyPos] if len(s) > 0 else None for s in sources ])
top= [ t for t in topEnum if t[1] is not None ]
top.sort( key=lambda a:a[1] )
src, key = top[0]
#print src, key
yield sources[ src ].pop(0)
This generator removes duplicates from a sequence.
def unique( sequence ):
keyPos= 0
seqIter= iter(sequence)
curr= seqIter.next()
for next in seqIter:
if next[keyPos] == curr[keyPos]:
# might want to create a sub-list of matches
continue
yield curr
curr= next
yield curr
Here's a script which uses these functions to produce a resulting sequence which is the union of all the sources with duplicates removed.
for u in unique( merge( source1, source2, source3, ... ) ):
print u
The complete set of data in each sequence must exist in memory once because we're sorting in memory. However, the resulting sequence does not actually exist in memory. Indeed, it works by consuming the other sequences.

How about using {id: (description, id_type)} dictionary? Or {(id, id_type): description} dictionary if (id,id_type) is the key.

Sets in Python are implemented using hash tables. In earlier versions, they were actually implemented using sets, but that has changed AFAIK. The only thing you save by using a set would then be the size of a pointer for each entry (the pointer to the value).
To use only a part of a tuple for the hashcode, you'd have to subclass tuple and override the hashcode method:
class ProteinTuple(tuple):
def __new__(cls, m1, m2, m3):
return tuple.__new__(cls, (m1, m2, m3))
def __hash__(self):
return hash(self[0])
Keep in mind that you pay for the extra function call to __hash__ in this case, because otherwise it would be a C method.
I'd go for Constantin's suggestions and take out the id from the tuple and see how much that helps.

It's still murky, but it sounds like you have some several lists of [(id, description, type)...]
The id's are unique within a list and consistent between lists.
You want to create a UNION: a single list, where each id occurs once, with possibly multiple descriptions.
For some reason, you think a mapping might be too big. Do you have any evidence of this? Don't over-optimize without actual measurements.
This may be (if I'm guessing correctly) the standard "merge" operation from multiple sources.
source1.sort()
source2.sort()
result= []
while len(source1) > 0 or len(source2) > 0:
if len(source1) == 0:
result.append( source2.pop(0) )
elif len(source2) == 0:
result.append( source1.pop(0) )
elif source1[0][0] < source2[0][0]:
result.append( source1.pop(0) )
elif source2[0][0] < source1[0][0]:
result.append( source2.pop(0) )
else:
# keys are equal
result.append( source1.pop(0) )
# check for source2, to see if the description is different.
This assembles a union of two lists by sorting and merging. No mapping, no hash.