The thread: The cost model is an input — page 2
A potential mended where it broke
A stored reweighting on a 256-vertex graph with negative arcs costs 10,045 relaxations to rebuild, and rebuilding it every time an update breaks it stops paying once half a per cent of arcs change between queries. Mending it from the arcs that broke costs 16 to 442 relaxations instead, and the stored potential stays at two thirds of the per-query cost at every rate of change. When the change is a vertex whose costs all move together, a repair reaches nearly every vertex. It still costs a third of a rebuild.
Two parametersA placement after the traffic moved
Four landmarks fitted to twenty queries that all end at one cell expand two thirds of the corners' cells there. Move the destination ten cells and the advantage is gone; move it thirty and the fitted placement expands nearly twice the corners' cells. Choosing again costs 317,000 cells of search — the saving of 8,600 queries — so on streams whose destination drifts, a policy that refits on a counter never beats fitting once and keeping the result, and past a drift of about ten cells nothing fitted beats the corners.
Two parametersA refit that changes one landmark
Choosing four landmarks again after traffic moves costs hundreds of thousands of cells of search, and on drifting streams it never paid. Keeping three and re-choosing the fourth costs a fifth as much — 0.19 of a full selection, not the twelfth the earlier page guessed. On drifting streams, refitting on the counter goes from a loss of up to 13% to within 2% of fitting once, and it wins where the destination moves six cells. When the destination jumps, it is the cheapest policy measured, 12% under the corners at one jump in 10,000 queries — unless the jumps come as often as one in 2,500.
Two parametersThe candidates near where the queries end
Re-choosing one landmark after the traffic moves tried every candidate as the replacement, and most of them could not win. Tried only on the four candidates nearest the new destination, the refit costs 0.085 of a full selection — the twelfth an earlier page guessed — against 0.236, and its placements serve fresh queries within 3% as well. Where the full search's winner lies further away, the refit was barely worth making. A refit that cheap still cannot follow a destination that jumps every 2,500 queries; what holds the counter back was never the refit's price.
What the libraries doThe cap that would ship
The published sweep put the knee at four to eight. On four real collections it is at nine to twelve, a cap of one costs forty-eight times the free parse rather than twenty-one, and the number a system should actually set is none of those.
Two parametersStarting from the corners
A landmark search that refits one landmark when its traffic moves lost to the fixed corners when the destination jumped often, and the accounting blamed the one full selection every refitting policy makes at the start. Starting from the corners instead, and never selecting in full, closes 82% of that gap at one jump in 2,500 queries and is the cheapest policy of all at one in 5,000. It gives the full selection back its advantage when jumps are rare, and on traffic that drifts a step at a time it gives up fitting altogether. Its counter fires when the cost rises, and from the corners concentrated traffic raises nothing: the corners are no worse for it, only no better.
Two parametersA refit priced before it is made
A landmark placement that starts at a maze's corners and refits one landmark when a counter sees recent queries getting dearer closed most of its gap on traffic that jumps — and on traffic that drifts it never fired, because from the corners concentrated traffic raises no cost. The chance it missed is cost that could fall. Pricing that chance directly — the current placement on the last twenty queries against four nearby candidates, every two thousand queries, refitting when the estimated saving pays for the refit — costs 120.5 cells a query at one jump in 2,500 against the counter's 128.9 and the corners' 126.8, and 107.4 on a slow drift against 103.3 for a full selection fitted once. It fails where jumps come every thousand queries, and on one stream it stops firing after its placement has aged.
Two parametersA horizon the stream can supply
A watch that refits a landmark placement when an estimated saving pays lost where traffic jumped every thousand queries, because its estimate assumed each saving would last a whole window. The horizon proposed to correct it, learned from the intervals between the watch's own refits, is the window every time: the watch looks once a window, so its refits are never closer together than one. A horizon learned from the traffic instead — how long it stays within ten cells of one destination — is safe on every stream and saves 3.4% at one jump in 2,500. At one in 1,000 it reaches 150.7 cells a query against the corners' 142.7, and a horizon read from the future only ties them. At that pace the looking costs what the refits save.
Two parametersA watch that looks less
A landmark watch that refits when an estimated saving pays loses to the plain corners when traffic jumps every thousand queries, because its looking costs more than its refits save. Using its learned horizon to look less often there — doubling the interval when the horizon falls below half of it, halving it when the horizon comes back — was predicted to tie the corners at that pace and cost nothing elsewhere. It ties nothing: 150.5 cells a query against the corners' 142.7, since the looks it skips are the looks that found the chances. And at one jump in 2,500, where the watch had won, it loses by twenty cells, because the rule cannot come back down. Halving needs a horizon as long as the stretched interval, and at 8,000 queries no stream here supplies one. A two-state rule that can come back does better and still loses at both paces. The looking was never the waste; at one jump in 1,000 there is nothing to watch for.
What the libraries doThe saving, spent
A bidirectional index whose reverse half cannot locate is a sixth smaller. Give that sixth back to the half that does locate, and the same total size answers a locate five times faster.
Two parametersA watch that switches itself off
A landmark watch that cannot beat the plain corners by looking less was given a switch instead: at every look it prices the corners on the same twenty queries, and when the corners would have been cheaper over its last four looks it goes back to them and stops looking for 8,000 queries. At one jump in 1,000 it works — 145.5 cells a query comparing search costs, 144.4 charging the watch for its own looking and refits, against the corners' 142.7 and the watch's 150.7. At one jump in 2,500, where watching pays, both switches give the watch's advantage away, 125.3 and 126.1 against 116.4, and the charging switch is off for 60% of the stream, as much as at the fast pace. What a look reads is the same at both paces: 12,249 cells a window at one, 11,257 at the other, with a spread of sixty thousand. The watch's value arrives in a few large looks after jumps, and four looks at any pace are mostly the others.
What a bound isA factor of fourteen, for four per cent
The compound walk removes a factor of σ from every interval extension. It requires a tree whose leaves are in order, which costs between nothing and five per cent of the wavelet tree. Both numbers on one plate, and the trade is not close.
What the libraries doThe apparatus that is smaller than its index
Answering "which documents hold this" at a price proportional to the answer used to cost 2.70 times the index it sits beside. Two changes later it costs 0.84, and the largest thing left is an array that says which document each row belongs to.
What a bound isA 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.
What a bound isA heap that keeps its levels in a line
The read-only family of sorts keeps the smallest values not yet output in a buffer, and kept as a max-heap that buffer brought the family's least transfers × fast memory, write-backs charged, to 1.71 of n²/B. A heap laid out so that every three-level subtree sits in one line of eight cells was predicted to write back about 15% of what it reads at its best memory and to bring the product to about 1.5. At a 64-cell buffer it writes back 18% and its product falls to 1.25 — under the 1.29 the sorted buffer reached with no write-backs charged at all, because the blocked layout cuts the reads as well. At 256 cells it reaches 1.13. At 16 cells it is the worst buffer measured, 2.92, because a heap whose last level only begins a block spreads sixteen nodes across nine lines.
What the libraries doEvery number of rounds, priced
A library merge sort given a file whose last tenth arrived late sorts the tail a buffer's worth at a time and then either sends every sorted piece into the head or merges the pieces first. A rule priced from measured tables chose the cheaper of the two ends at every buffer. Priced the same way at every number of rounds in between, it was predicted never to choose a partway number and to price every one within 6%. It chooses the cheapest number of rounds at all seven buffers on that input and at 14 of 15 settings across reaches and buffers; the one partway optimum among them — six rounds of seven, by 1% — it misses by choosing five, 3.8% dear. But the estimates are not all within 6%. At the three smallest buffers the first round is priced 15% to 25% wrong, high at one buffer and low at the others, because its pairs of pieces cross the head in a way no table of single runs describes; the rule survives it because one round is never close to the cheapest.