Pareto frontier — where it appears
Named by 10 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Choosing a growth factor
When a dynamic array fills up, how much bigger should the new one be? Doubling costs 2.02 units per append and leaves 39% of the allocation empty. Growing by an eighth costs 9.89 and leaves 10%. Every factor is a trade between time and space, no factor wins on both, and real implementations disagree about the answer for reasons that are measurable.
The frontier between time and space
The question of which sorting algorithm to use has an honest answer, and it is a shape rather than a name. Comparisons on one axis, peak auxiliary space on the other, and five of the ten algorithms here are on the Pareto frontier while five are dominated — beaten on both counts at once, so that no weighting of the two costs makes them the right choice. Heapsort is one of the five that lose.
The count somebody chose
Six quantities can now be measured for every sort. Ranking the ten algorithms by each of them and comparing the orders, comparisons and peak space disagree about 91% of all pairs, and memory traffic and modelled misses disagree about 7%. There is no ranking of sorting algorithms; there are six, and choosing between them is a statement about the data rather than about the algorithms.
The space the model does not see
A slot is not a byte, a frame is not a slot, sixteen thousand allocations are not one allocation of the same size, and none of these numbers includes the input. The space counters are the newest instrument here and the honest account of what they miss is longer than the account of what they measure — including one bound this phase set out to demonstrate and could not.
Every occurrence at the same price
A regular sampling has one dial and it moves two costs together — 1,495 bits at 63 LF steps an occurrence, 131,088 bits at none. A sampling at the run boundaries sits at 10,244 bits and one predecessor query, which is a point the curve reaches only at 69,649.
What a ceiling costs in phrases
A cap of sixteen costs one phrase of a hundred and fifty-six and halves the worst chain. A cap of four costs six times the phrases. The curve between them is flat at one end and vertical at the other, and the elbow is where a structure should be built.
The shape one structure will not fold
Folding thirty-two shards largest-pair-first keeps 2,556 quantile tuples against a balanced tree's 3,211 — a fifth of the space saved. The same fold on the counter tables beside them leaves 403 counts of error against the tree's 148. A deployment holding both cannot fold once and be right twice.
A flag that weighs the work as well as the bits
A wavelet-tree level's mixed blocks are each coded by their arrangement's index or by the gaps between their value changes, a flag choosing the shorter, and longer blocks then save bits on every text at the price of more work a rank. Charging the flag for decoding work as well as bits was predicted to reach the same curve as shortening the block, and to beat it by no more than a hundredth of a bit a character. On English words, DNA and protein it reaches nothing below that curve. On the repetitive collection it reaches 0.156 bits a character below it: 1,023-bit blocks with a price on work cost 0.458 bits a character for less work a rank than 63-bit blocks do at 0.607. The difference is in which blocks the flag codes by their arrangement — on English words blocks that change value ninety-six times, on the repetitive collection blocks holding one short run of ones in two hundred and fifty-five bits.
A price the levels share
A bidirectional index's wavelet-tree levels code each mixed block by its arrangement or by its gaps, and a flag that charges each code for the work a rank costs inside it reached below the curve the block lengths draw on one text of four. Setting that price separately for each level of the tree was predicted to find a few hundredths of a bit on English words, where the deep levels hold runs. It finds nothing on any text: under a ten-thousandth of a bit beyond one shared price. The price a block wants is set by the text, not by the depth of the node it sits in, and every level holds a fifth of the index.
The blocks the searches ask for
A flag that codes each block of an index's wavelet-tree levels as an arrangement or a gap code, charged for the work a rank does inside the block, was priced as if ranks landed on every position equally, and a price for each level found nothing that one price did not. Pattern searches do not ask evenly: on English words the busiest tenth of the blocks takes 22% of their ranks, and 35% when common patterns are asked more. Priced by the work of the ranks that actually land in each block, chosen on one sample of searches and charged on another, the flag reaches 0.11 to 0.16 bits a character below the old pricing at the same work on English, and 0.03 on the repetitive collection.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Index sizeTrade offBidirectional indexCacheCompressed bit vectorDominanceMeasurementPredictionQuicksortRank queryTime space tradeoffWavelet tree