Interval symbols — where it appears
Named by 13 essays across 7 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Proportional to the answer, not the alphabet
At a fixed alphabet of thirty-two, a loop costs three hundred and twenty ranks whether one symbol is present or all of them. The descent costs ten and sixty-two. The experiment has to move the answer without moving the alphabet, and the obvious sweep moves both.
A node costs two ranks
The left child's interval is the position minus the right child's. A descent that calls rank on both children returns exactly the same symbols at twice the cost, and nothing about the answer can see it.
Two at binary, five at twenty-six
The saving is a factor in the alphabet, so a two-symbol alphabet gets two. Approximate matching in this field is mostly done on DNA, which sits near the bottom of the list at 2.7.
Flat in the budget, and not
One saving is eleven times at every error budget, because it is a property of the alphabet. The other moves between ninety-eight and a hundred and five, because it follows the share of extensions that find nothing. Two savings, two shapes, and neither line crosses the other.
The tree answers the question
The distinct documents in a range of rows are the distinct symbols of the document array in that range. A wavelet tree enumerates those in one descent, so the range minimum, the chain, the bitmap and the recursion all go at once.
Asking about symbols that are not there
A search extends an interval by every character of the alphabet, and on a deep branch almost all of them produce an empty interval. That is a full rank walk whose entire result is the discovery that nothing was there.
The branches that find nothing
An approximate search over a twenty-symbol alphabet attempts sixteen thousand eight hundred extensions and nine thousand two hundred of them produce an empty interval. That is a full rank walk whose entire result is the discovery that nothing was there.
Three savings on one structure
A factor of eleven on an extension, a factor of seven on a branching search, and a sixth of the bits. Applied to one bidirectional index they do not give a factor of seventy-seven, and the reason is that two of the three are the same saving.
A looser budget wastes a larger share
More errors permitted means more work, and the fraction of that work which was never going to help rises with it — from thirty-one per cent at no errors to seventy-five at two. The saving is worth most where the search is most expensive.
One set, three orders
The symbols an interval holds do not depend on the tree's shape. The order they come out in does, and a search that accumulates a running count as it reads them computes a plausible number that is wrong on eighty per cent of queries.
A walk that does not prune
Remove the emptiness test and the descent visits every node of the tree, returns exactly the same symbols with exactly the same intervals, and costs sixty per cent more. No test of the answer can see it.
Two factors that do not multiply
Eleven times and seventy-eight times against the same baseline, so an index with both should be eight hundred and sixty. It is seventy-eight, and the shortfall is eleven — the first factor, exactly, because the second operation already contains it.
The saving that is a loss
An operation that is seventy-eight times cheaper on a branching search costs twice as much on an exact one. It reports every symbol present in order to hand back the one that was asked for, and a search that knows its character needs none of the rest.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Wavelet treeDescentRankBacktracking searchAlphabet sizeBidirectional indexCheckCompound walkDead branchError budgetCompositionIndex size