Working set — where it appears
Named by 17 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The cliff where the data stops fitting
Below the cache's capacity, almost every access hits. A factor of eight above it, almost every access misses. The transition is not gradual and it is not a property of any algorithm — it is a property of how much data there is, and an algorithm's complexity class says nothing about which side of it a program is working on.
Where an algorithm looks
Plotted as index against time, every array access an algorithm makes becomes a picture that no count contains. Merge sort's is a set of sweeps. Heapsort's is a spray. Quicksort's is a narrowing triangle. These shapes decide how fast the algorithms run and they are entirely absent from the analysis that says all three are Θ(n log n).
The table nobody has to keep
A million-cell table, computed cell for cell in the same order, holding two thousand cells at its peak instead of a million. The saving is exactly (n+1)/2, it costs nothing on any operation counter, and what it buys is paid for with the one thing the table was for.
A triangle stored in a square
An interval table has a cell for every range of keys and nothing below its diagonal, and it can be stored as a square array, as packed rows, or as packed diagonals — the last matching the order it is filled in. On sixty-four keys, with every read replayed through a small cache, the square misses 39.7% of its reads, packed rows 38.8%, and packed diagonals 78.4%. Storing a table in the order it is written is storing it in the order it is not read.
The permutation that moves almost nothing
Two ways to scramble sixteen thousand elements. Shuffling them inside windows of five hundred and twelve puts two million pairs out of order and costs 3,095 block transfers to carry out. Swapping a thousand pairs across the whole array puts seven million out of order and costs 1,189. Inversions are the textbook measure of disorder, and on a disk they rank these two backwards.
The split scan cut into blocks
Every way of filling an interval table one cell at a time stops at about one cache miss per split point considered once the table outgrows the cache — 1.01 at 128 keys, whether the cells go by length, by rows, or in a recursive tiling. Cut each cell's scan into blocks instead, and apply a block of split points to a block of cells whose inputs are all in hand, recursively at every scale, and the same 357,760 split points cost 0.094 misses each. The fill is told nothing about the cache, blocks of one and of four do equally well, and it needs no extra memory, where storing the table twice gets to 0.151 by doubling it.
The record measured where it would run
A table of every pair selection sort has compared saves half its comparisons at 1,024 keys, and priced in word operations it was the better record at every size. Replayed through a 32 KB cache it misses 477,824 times to save 258,290 comparisons — nearly two misses for every comparison it removes — while a cache of 1,024 pairs misses 192. The table's size is not the problem. Its layout is: it looks up and writes each question at [key][minimum], a new row every time. Indexed by the ordered pair instead, the same bits miss 3,079 times, and that repair works only for a sort whose smaller operand stays put.
The digit a pass chooses for itself
A radix sort's digit width trades passes against the streams each pass scatters into, and the best width depends on the keys and the cache together: 8 bits for uniform keys through 32 KB, 11 through 256 KB, 16 for keys with few distinct values. A digit widened because the previous pass's counts were concentrated cannot find it, since in a least-significant-first sort one digit's counts say nothing about the next. One read that counts every byte at once, and a sample to size each field, can. Charged for both, the resulting plan is never worse than 1.23 times the best fixed width on any keys or cache measured. The best single fixed width reaches 1.50, and 11 bits reaches 3.61.
A record the size of a pass's minima
Selection sort's table of every pair it has compared is 256 KB at 1,024 keys, and indexed by the ordered pair it lives almost entirely in the rows of the current minima. Keep only those rows — a ring of r rows, the least recently used given up — and 12 rows, 3 KB, catch 99% of the comparisons the whole table skips, with no misses beyond the first touch of each row. The ring beats the cache of 1,024 pairs on both axes at once. The rows it needs grow with the logarithm of the input, a few more than the minima one pass passes through, and which row it gives up matters as much as how many it has.
A record of stretches, not pairs
Selection sort asks many of its comparisons again, and a record of past answers can skip them. A table of every pair skips them all in 256 KB at 1,024 keys, and a ring of the recent minima's rows in 3 KB. The questions a pass repeats have more structure than rows record: each minimum of the previous pass was compared with one contiguous stretch of positions. Kept as a list of stretches — each minimum's position, where its stretch began, and where the key that beat it stood — the previous pass's chain answers 99.3% of what the table would, in 312 bytes. The failure predicted for it, a key the swap moves into a stretch, costs 0.04%. What the chain cannot do is stay small on every input: on reversed keys it needs a link for every key.
Two swaps a pass, and the stretches hold
Bidirectional selection sort finds the smallest and the largest key in one scan and places both, so a record of its past answers has to keep two chains, and each pass makes two swaps that land where the other chain reaches. The prediction was that the second swap would break stretches at a rate of whole per cent. It does not. Each chain answers its own side's repeats as the one-sided chain does — 99.1% and 99.2% at 1,024 keys — and a swap spoils about a tenth of a question whichever sort makes it, so the broken share falls as 1/n for both. What the second chain changes is the input that makes a record long: sorted keys, which the one-sided sort never repeats a question on, cost the two-ended record a link a key.
The order with the best depth
An edit-distance table can be filled row by row, column by column, or one anti-diagonal at a time, and the anti-diagonal order is the one that needs the fewest rounds — 513 against 65,793 on two strings of 256 characters, because every cell on an anti-diagonal is independent of the others. Stored the usual way, row by row, it also misses the cache on 31.1% of its reads, where row order misses 6.3%. The order that is best for parallel work is worst for the memory it runs on.
The table stored the way it is filled
Store an edit-distance table by anti-diagonals instead of by rows, and the anti-diagonal fill keeps its 513 rounds while its cache misses fall from 31.1% of reads to 8.7%. It does not fall to row order's 6.3%, and the gap is not noise — on caches of four and eight lines the two rates are 9.4% and 6.3%, exactly three to two, because a cell reads from two earlier diagonals and only one earlier row. The same layout turns row order into the order that strides, at 28.3%. How a table is stored and the order it is filled in are one decision, and its price is the number of earlier fronts the recurrence reads.
Eight cells at once
The anti-diagonal fill order exists because its cells do not depend on one another, and every table filled here has been walked one cell at a time anyway. Computed eight at a time, a step touches 5.71 cache lines on the layout that stores the table by diagonals and 10.87 on the one that stores it by rows — and per cell the first keeps falling to 0.42 while the second stops at 1.27. The prediction that a diagonal step would touch three or four lines was wrong, and line-aligning each diagonal only takes it to 4.94.
The memory a product does not charge
Time times space charges a sort for the cells it writes and not for the fast memory it needs to write them cheaply. Counted three ways, on random keys in lines of eight, a read-only family stays within a factor of eight of the floor with 32 to 256 cells of fast memory at every length, while heapsort needs all of n and quicksort an eighth of it. Quicksort's need falls far faster than predicted as the factor loosens. And the product the floor leaves out, transfers times fast memory, separates the two kinds of sort completely: no read-only sort can push it far below n²/B, and quicksort reaches a twentieth of it.
The lines a sort writes back
A replay that charges a transfer for every line brought into fast memory and none for a line sent back flatters every sort that writes in place. Charged for its write-backs, quicksort's transfers rise by 1.9 at every memory short of n, as predicted, and heapsort's by 1.8, not the predicted three, because no line can go back more often than it came in. The cost that changes the account is the last one: at n itself every in-place sort pays two reads of its array, so none of them can come within a factor of two of the floor, while the read-only family reaches 1.07.
A buffer that does not shift its tail
The read-only family of sorts scans its input once for each batch of the smallest values not yet output, keeping them in a buffer; charged for the dirty lines it sends back to slow memory, its least transfers × fast memory rose from 1.29 of n²/B to 1.87, because a sorted buffer takes each value by shifting every larger entry one place. Kept as a max-heap instead, the buffer was predicted to write back about a third of the lines it reads below its own size and to bring the product back towards 1.29. At a buffer of 64 cells it writes back 33% at its best memory, against 45%, and its least product falls to 1.71: right about the share, wrong about the product, since a third written back is still a third more transfers. At 256 cells the heap does more than predicted — 1.47 million accesses against 6.94 million, a third of the misses — and its least product, 1.62, is under any buffer's on the earlier charge. At 16 cells it does nothing.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
LocalityCacheMemory layoutAccess patternCost modelComparison countEvaluation orderMeasured countMiss rateBlock transferDynamic programmingEdit distance