False-positive rate — where it appears
Named by 25 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A filter that is allowed to be wrong
A Bloom filter holding four thousand keys in five thousand bytes answers membership in four memory probes and gets 1.14% of its negative answers wrong. It never gets a positive one wrong. That asymmetry is the whole design, and the rate it makes errors at is a third quantity beside the operation count and the space.
The formula everybody sizes filters with
Fill a Bloom filter with four thousand random keys and its measured false-positive rate is within 4% of the textbook formula. Fill the same filter with the integers 1 to 4,000 and the rate is 30% worse than the formula says — not because the hash is bad, but because it is too good on that input.
The evidence a filter cannot remove
A Bloom filter never says no about a key it holds, and that is its whole guarantee. Clear the bits of a thousand deleted keys and it starts saying no about 638 of the thousand it still holds. A counter in every cell repairs it at four times the space; a fingerprint repairs it at twice, and acquires a condition on the caller that neither of the others has.
The intersection two filters cannot report
Two Bloom filters over sets that share five hundred keys, ANDed bit by bit. The result never denies a shared key, and it looks like a filter of the intersection. It is not one — a key in only one of the sets passes it 1.8% of the time where a real filter of the intersection passes none, and reading the intersection's size off its bits gives 900.
The filter each run carries
A log-structured store turns every lookup for a missing key into a read of every level, and a Bloom filter on each run buys those reads back with memory. Spread five bits a key evenly across three levels and a missing key still wastes 0.279 reads. Give the small levels more bits and the large one fewer — the same memory — and it wastes 0.201. At four levels the gap is 0.382 against 0.209, because sized filters stop the waste growing with the number of levels.
A filter past its design size
A Bloom filter sized for two thousand keys at one per cent answers yes to 15.6% of absent keys at four thousand and 68.1% at eight thousand. Nothing fails and nothing warns. A stack of filters that adds a tighter layer whenever the top one fills holds 2.0% at eight thousand, under a bound it can state in advance — in 2.9 times the bits of one filter sized for eight thousand from the start.
A filter that grows by moving a bit
A table of fingerprints can double in place, moving one stored bit of every fingerprint into its slot number, and so grow as one structure with one lookup where a stack of Bloom filters adds layers. Its false-positive rate is fixed by the fingerprint's length and not by the table, so with nothing reserved it doubles as the keys double — 0.69% at a forecast of 2,000, 5.7% at eight times that. Reserve three bits at the start and it holds 0.66% at eight times, in 294,912 bits, exactly what a table built for sixteen thousand keys would hold and fewer than the stack's 428,938. The reserve is a forecast of growth, and past it the rate climbs again.
Two hash values and the keys they copy
A Bloom filter that makes its k bit positions from two hash values, as h₁ + i·h₂, answers yes to 1.6% of absent keys on a 64-bit filter where k independent hashes answer 0.69%. The penalty is not the one expected. With the step forced odd no key ever repeats a bit, while a quarter of independent keys do. What costs the filter is a query whose start and step reproduce a stored key's whole progression, which happens with probability 4n/m², measured to within a few per cent from 64 bits to 4,096. The penalty fades as the filter grows and returns as the hash count rises — 1.13 times at seven positions on 1,024 bits, 5.35 times at thirteen.
The bits given to the wrong keys
A fingerprint table that gives later arrivals longer fingerprints holds 3.6% where a table that reserves nothing holds 21.1%, and it never runs out of reserve because it has none. It also dies at exactly the same size as the table that reserved nothing — 32 times its forecast, on the same key — because every generation shares one quotient, and the generation with the shortest fingerprint is the one that arrived first.
Positions confined to one line
A Bloom filter lookup reads 5.55 cache lines because its six positions are scattered across the whole filter. Confining them to a 512-bit block makes it exactly one, and costs 7% more false positives at eight bits a key. At sixteen bits a key the same block costs 91%, and the two-value trick that is free across a whole filter costs another 135% inside one — because a block is a small filter, and small filters are where the penalty lives.
A lookup that stops caring how wide an entry is
Buckets of eight entries aligned to a cache line read 1.20 lines a lookup when an entry is eight bytes and 19.25 when it is 128, because the bound was arithmetic about alignment and the arithmetic stops holding. Keeping one byte of each key's hash in a separate array and the entries in a parallel one reads 2.21 lines at every width from four bytes to sixty-four — and for a key the table does not hold, 2.05 against 31.98.
Two blocks and the chances they add
Send each key to the emptier of two 512-bit blocks and the busiest block of a filter at sixteen bits a key holds 35 keys instead of 51. The false-positive rate gets worse: 0.0997% against 0.0854%. At eight bits a key it nearly doubles. A lookup cannot tell which block a key went to, so it has to ask both, and asking twice is two chances to be wrong. At every density a filter is commonly built at, the repair that tames a hash table's worst bucket buys a filter nothing that a block twice as wide does not.
A block the lookup can work out
Sending each key to the emptier of two blocks flattens the load and doubles the chance of a false positive, because a lookup cannot know which block was chosen. Give each block a threshold on a hash of the key instead and the lookup can work it out: one block read, one chance, and 46% of the load balance kept. At sixteen bits a key that is 0.0618% against one block's 0.0854% and two blocks' 0.0997%. The threshold costs 1.5% of the budget and two bits of it are nearly as good as sixteen.
The day a filter cannot grow
A fingerprint table dies when its quotient reaches its shortest fingerprint, and a filter cannot lengthen a fingerprint because it does not keep its keys. The store it filters does. Rebuilt from that store whenever its own count says its rate has passed 1%, a table grown a thousandfold never exceeds 1.05% and ends holding exactly what a reserve of ten bits holds — 18.9 bits a key — having read the store 1.34 times over. The reserve paid its bits early: 34.8 a key at four times the forecast, where the rebuilt table held 18.4. Which one is cheaper depends on whether the growth arrives.
A penalty set by the block
A blocked Bloom filter pays a penalty for its uneven block loads, and a threshold that lets a lookup work out its block repays about a third of it — measured on 2,048 keys, with a prediction that larger filters would widen the gain. From 2,048 keys to 131,072 nothing moves: one block holds 0.086% to 0.090% against a computed 0.086%, and the threshold design 0.060% to 0.065%. The busiest block grows and the rate does not follow it. What sets both the penalty and the repair is the keys a block holds. A threshold turns out to be worth one doubling of the block's width, and its advantage shrinks from 40% at sixteen keys a block to between 5% and 13% at 128.
The small levels' share of a range filter
Prefix filters on a four-level store were proposed a prefix length each, on the reasoning that one length is a compromise between levels whose densities differ 43-fold. Each level does want its own length, 18 to 22 bits, and that recovers a quarter of the gap to a perfect range filter. The gap is mostly not about length. Three fifths of it is false positives. Moving filter bits from the largest level to the small ones — 12, 12, 8 and 3 bits a key instead of 5 each — recovers more than half of it at the same memory, and matches one shared length given twice the memory.
The bits a second threshold costs
A blocked Bloom filter whose first block carries a threshold was proposed a second threshold on each key's second block, with a third block for keys both refuse. It does what it was meant to: at 512-bit blocks it removes nearly a third of the load spread the first threshold left. And the rate does not fall — 0.066% against 0.062% — because the second table, paid for in blocks, raises the rate the filter would have with no spread at all by more than the narrower spread saves. The threshold was stored in more bits than it needs: at four to six bits, one threshold beats the eight-bit design by about a tenth on one run, and a second threshold of the best width ties it at 512-bit blocks.
The resolution a range filter can afford
A prefix filter on each level of a log-structured store answers a range by asking one question for every prefix the range touches, and each can be wrong. A filter holding prefixes at every length from 16 to 24 bits could ask each range at the resolution it needs, and was proposed as the repair. At the store's five bits a key it costs 5.69 transfers a range query where one length a level costs 4.32, because a short range is asked only at the finest length, and that filter now holds a fraction of the memory. Asked at every length it recovers most of that, and seems to overtake the single length at twelve bits a key — but only a single length chosen for five bits. Chosen again for each memory, one length a level beats every multi-resolution design at every memory measured, because the resolution a level can afford is itself set by its memory.
A threshold knows only its own block
A blocked Bloom filter that gives each block a threshold on a hash of the key lets a lookup work out which of two blocks a key went to, and it spends a small table to do it. Sharing one threshold among a group of blocks would shrink the table, and was proposed as the next saving. It is a loss at every group size. With one four-bit threshold a block, 512-bit blocks reach a false-positive rate of 0.061%; shared by a pair, 0.071%; shared by sixteen, 0.100%, worse than no threshold at all. Neighbouring blocks fill at unrelated moments, so a shared threshold closes when the first of its group does, and every key it turns away lands in a second block chosen at random.
One length for the gaps and the clusters
On uniform keys one prefix length a level, chosen for its memory, beat a filter holding every length from 12 to 24 bits. Clustering the keys was predicted to reverse that, because coarse prefixes between clusters are empty and a coarse filter can then say no to a long range in one question. Clustering alone does not: whether ranges fall in the gaps or at the keys, one length re-chosen for that workload still wins, since it moves coarse for the gaps and fine for the keys. The multi-resolution filter wins only where a clustered store is asked both — by 0.17 transfers a query at ten bits a key on sixteen clusters — and it wins on short ranges inside the clusters, not on long ones between them.
Two hashes that shared their low bits
Two pages on blocked Bloom filters with thresholds each recorded an instability they could not explain: a false-positive rate that collapsed on one seed at 256-bit blocks, and a pair of four-bit thresholds measuring 0.169% where its neighbours measured 0.08%. Both came from how a hash was brought into range. Every filter took its block and its ordering value as a modulo of a multiply-shift hash, and the low bits of such a hash depend only on the low bits of the key, so the two values were dependent whenever the block count had a factor of two to spare. At 992 blocks the threshold filter measures anything from 0.185% to 0.645%; read from the hash's top bits, 0.126% to 0.133%.
A code that has to fit its worst line
A blocked Bloom filter's four-bit thresholds are far from uniform: two blocks in five never close, and the rest crowd into the upper values, an entropy of 2.4 to 2.8 bits. A table coded from that distribution was predicted to match the four-bit rate on under three bits a block. Packed end to end it does, at 2.65 to 3.03 bits, and it costs every lookup a second read for the index. Packed a fixed number to a cache line it needs no index, but every line must hold its worst run of long code words, which costs 3.19 bits at 64-bit blocks and eighty-three code words decoded a lookup. Where the table is large enough for the saving to show, a plain three-bit table gets part of it with none of the costs.
A bit for whether it closed
Almost half of a blocked filter's threshold table says one thing: this block never closed. Store that answer as a bit a block, and a closing value only for the blocks that did, found by counting the ones before it. At 64-bit blocks the prediction was 3.1 bits a block and two cache lines. Packed end to end it lands at 3.15 bits and 2.5 lines; packed a line at a time it reads two lines and counts one word, and costs 3.64 bits, because every line must hold the most closings any line happens to draw. At 512-bit blocks, where three blocks in five close, it saves under a tenth of a bit.
The worst of more lines
A blocked Bloom filter's threshold table, stored as a bit for whether each block closed and a value for each block that did, packed a fixed number of blocks to a cache line, costs 3.64 bits a block at 64-bit blocks because every line must hold the most closed blocks any line draws. Sizing the line for the mean plus one standard deviation, and moving a line's excess values to a shared overflow, was predicted to cost about 3.25 bits and send under one closed lookup in a hundred to a third line. The lookups behave as predicted: 0.6% read the overflow, 2.003 lines a lookup. The bits land at 3.38, because every line must carry the offset where its moved values begin. What the measurement found instead is that the worst line is a property of how many lines there are: 3.38 bits at two thousand blocks and 3.62 at a hundred and twenty thousand, while the line sized for the usual line costs the same at every size.
An offset that only has to reach its neighbours
A blocked Bloom filter's threshold table, its cache lines sized for the mean number of closed blocks plus one standard deviation and their excess values moved to a shared overflow, cost 3.38 bits a block where 3.25 was predicted, because every line carries a nineteen-bit offset into the overflow. Grouping lines, each line's offset reaching only its group's part and each group's position held once in an array of its own, was predicted to cost 3.31 bits a block for 2.0064 lines a lookup. It costs 3.301 for 2.0060, as predicted. But the nineteen bits were mostly an offset sized to address a table of moved values, when the overflow this table has needs eleven: sized for the overflow it has, the ungrouped line costs 3.337 for no extra line at all. Grouping's further three hundredths cost a line a moved lookup, and spent on room instead, that line buys more. At equal lines a lookup the grouped table is the dearer, by a hundredth to nine hundredths of a bit.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Bloom filterDesign parameterBlocked filterThresholdSpace time tradeApproximate membershipBalls in binsCacheOne-sided errorTwo choicesCache lineFingerprint