• Trigger2_2000@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Not really a data structure per say, but just knowing LISP and the interesting structures it uses internally.

    The results of LISP operations CAR, CDR, CADR and the other one I can’t remember now.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    B trees are cool but not obscure necessarily. I didn’t learn about them in college. It sounds like binary tree and it’s similar but it’s different. It’s a data structure to take advantage of the way disk reads work.

  • QueenMidna@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I’ve been knee-deep in these lately so I’m a big fan

    Theta sketches!

    Do you want to approximately count a large volume of items, but save the state for later so you can UNION , INTERSECT and even DIFF them? Then Thetas are right for you!

    Or basically anything in the Apache Datasketches lbrary.

  • Atlas_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Fibonacci heaps are pretty cool. Not used very often b/c they’re awful to implement, but better complexity than many other heaps.

    Also Binary Lifting is closer to an algorithm than a data structure but it’s used in Competitive Programming a fair bit, and isn’t often taught: https://cp-algorithms.com/graph/lca_binary_lifting.html

    And again closer to an algo tham a data structure, but Sum over Subsets DP in 3^n also has a cool little bit of math in it: https://cp-algorithms.com/algebra/all-submasks.html

  • dustletter@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Skew binary trees. They’re an immutable data structure combining the performance characteristics of lists (O(1) non-amortized push/pop) and b-trees (log(N) lookup and updates)
    They use a sequence of complete trees, cleverly arranged using skew binary numbers so that adding an element never causes cascading updates.
    In practice they’re superseded by relaxed radix balanced trees.

  • idunnololz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    I personally don’t think it’s that obscure but I have never seen this used in production code that I didn’t write: the linked hash map or ordered hash map.

  • duckythescientist@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m also not sure if this is obscure, but Bloom Filters! It’s a structure that you can add elements to then ask it if it has seen the element before with the answer being either “no” or “probably yes”. There’s a trade-off between confidence of a “probably yes”, how many elements you expect to add, and how big the Bloom Filter is, but it’s very space and time efficient. And it uses hash functions which always make for a fun time.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 days ago

      Relevant xkcd

      in Randall's words

      Sometimes, you can tell Bloom filters are the wrong tool for the job, but when they’re the right one you can never be sure.

    • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Obscure 10 years ago maybe. These days there have been so many articles about them I bet they’re more widely known than more useful and standard things like prefix trees (aka tries).

  • Gobbel2000@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 day ago

    The CSR (compressed sparse row) format is a very simple but efficient way of storing sparse matrices, meaning matrices with a large amount of zero entries, which should not all occupy memory. It has three arrays: one holds all non-zero entries in order, read row by row, the next array contains the column indices of each non-zero element (and therefore has the same length as the first array), the third array indices into the first array for the first element of each row, so we can tell where a new row starts.

    On sparse matrices it has optimal memory efficiency and fast lookups, the main downside is that adding or removing elements from the matrix requires shifting all three arrays, so it is mostly useful for immutable data.

  • Vorpal@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    XOR lists are obscure and cursed but cool. And not useful on modern hardware as the CPU can’t predict access patterns. They date from a time when every byte of memory counted and CPUs didn’t have pipelines.

    (In general, all linked lists or trees are terrible for performance on modern CPUs. Prefer vectors or btrees with large fanout factors. There are some niche use cases still for linked lists in for example kernels, but unless you know exactly what you are doing you shouldn’t use linked data structures.)

    EDIT: Fixed spelling

    • Pissmidget@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      From just the name my mind instantly thought of the conflict as “conflict diamonds”, and I began to wonder what constitutes a conflict free boolean or integer.

      If anyone wants to take a crack at writing up why primitives are unfortunate, and we should move on to new “conflict free data types”™ I will cheer you on!

      Also, very interesting read about actual conflict free replicated days types. Cheers!

    • BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      This sounds like document collaboration software like Google sheets where multiple people can edit a document at the same time

      • subversive_dev@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yes exactly, collaborative editing is probably the number one use case people actually use them for. I doubt Google docs actually uses a real CRDT behind the scenes but they do have some big brains over there in the chocolate factory

  • xthexder@l.sw0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I came up with a kind of clever data type for storing short strings in a fixed size struct so they can be stored on the stack or inline without any allocations.
    It’s always null-terminated so it can be passed directly as a C-style string, but it also stores the string length without using any additional data (Getting the length would normally have to iterate to find the end).
    The trick is to store the number of unused bytes in the last character of the buffer. When the string is full, there are 0 unused bytes and the size byte overlaps the null terminator.
    (Only works for strings < 256 chars excluding null byte)

    Implementation in C++ here: https://github.com/frustra/strayphotons/blob/master/src/common/common/InlineString.hh

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        22 characters is significantly less useful than 255 characters. I use this for resource name keys, asset file paths, and a few other scenarios. The max size is configurable, so I know that nothing I am going to store is ever going to require heap allocations (really bad to be doing every frame in a game engine).

        I developed this specifically after benchmarking a simpler version and noticed a significant amount of time being spent in strlen(), and it had real benefits in my case.
        Admittedly just storing a struct with a static buffer and separate size would have worked pretty much the same and eliminated the 255 char limitation, but it was fun to build.

        • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          22 characters is significantly less useful than 255 characters.

          You can still use more than 22 characters; it just switches to the heap.

          nothing I am going to store is ever going to require heap allocations

          I would put good money that using 256 bytes everywhere is going to be slower overall than just using the heap when you need more than 22 characters. 22 is quite a lot, especially for keys. ThisReallyLongKey is still only 17.

  • myfavouritename@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    I get way more use out of Doubly Connected Edge Lists (DCEL) than I ever thought I would when I first learned about them in school.

    When I want to render simple stuff to the screen, built-in functions like ‘circle’ or ‘line’ work. But for any shapes more complicated than that, I often find that it’s useful to work with the data in DCEL form.

  • solomonschuler@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    skiplists are interesting data structures. The underlying mechanism is it’s a 2-dimensional probabilistic linked list with some associated height ‘h’ that enables skipping of nodes through key-value pairs. So, compared to a traditional linked list that uses a traversal method to search through all values stored. A skip list starts from the maxLevel/maxheight, determines if “next” points to a key greater than the key provided or a nullptr, and moves down to the level below it if it is. This reduces the time complexity from O(1) with a linked list to O(N) where N Is the maxLevel.

    The reason behind why its probabilistic (in this case using a pseudo random number) is because its easier to insert and remove elements, otherwise (if you went with the idealized theoretical form) you would have to reconstruct the entire data structure each and every time you want to add/remove elements.

    In my testing when adding 1,000,000 elements to a skiplist it reduced from 6s search with a linked list to less than 1s!

  • Marc@sueden.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 days ago

    @protein

    Finger Tree!

    A persistent, purely functional workhorse. Amortized O(1) access at both ends, O(log n) concatenation/splitting.

    It generalizes elegantly to build sequences, priority queues, and more. Powers Haskell’s main Data.Sequence. A functional programmer’s secret weapon.

    • Vorpal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      On paper they are efficient. In practise, all pointer based data structures (linked lists, binary trees, etc) are slow on modern hardware. And this effect is more important than the complexity in practise for most practical high performance code.

      You are far better off with linear access where possible (e.g. vectors, open addressing hash maps) or if you must have a tree, make the fan-out factor as large as possible (e.g. btrees rather than binary trees).

      Now, I don’t know if Haskell etc affords you such control, I mainly code in Rust (and C++ in the past).

      Also see this old thread from 2016 on hacker news about this very topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13263275

      • Marc@sueden.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        @Vorpal

        Totally fair point, thanks for calling that out.

        When I mentioned finger trees I was thinking more about the *functional* side (persistence, elegant composition, Haskell/Data.Sequence style usage) than raw performance on real hardware.

        In performance‑critical code your argument for cache‑friendly linear structures and wide trees absolutely makes sense, and I appreciate the reminder to think about actual access patterns and hardware effects, not just asymptotic complexity.

        • Vorpal@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          I think a lot of modern software is bloated. I remember when GUI programs used to fit on a floppy or two. Nowdays we have bloated electron programs taking hundreds of MB of RAM just to show a simple text editor, because it drags a whole browser with it.

          I love snappy software, and while I don’t think we need to go back to programs fitting on a single floppy and using hundreds of KB of RAM, the pendulum does need to swing back a fair bit. I rewrote some CLI programs in the last few years that I found slow (one my own previously written in Python, the other written in C++ but not properly designed for speed). I used Rust, which sure helped compared to Python, but the real key was thinking carefully about the data structures used up front and designing for performance. And lots of profiling and benchmarking as I went along.

          The results? The python program was sped up by 50x, the C++ program by 320x. In both cases it changed these from “irritating delay” to “functionally instant for human perception”.

          The two programs:

          And I also rewrote a program I used to manage Arch Linux configs (written in bash) in Rust. I also added features I wanted so it was never directly comparable (and I don’t have numbers), but it made “apply configs to system” take seconds instead of minutes, with several additional features as well. (https://github.com/VorpalBlade/paketkoll/tree/main/crates/konfigkoll)

          Oh and want a faster way to check file integrity vs the package manager on your Linux distro? Did that too.

          Now what was the point I was making again? Maybe I’m just sensitive to slow software. I disable all animations in GUIs after all, all those milliseconds of waiting adds up over the years. Computers are amazingly fast these days, we shouldn’t make them slower than they have to be. So I think far more software should count as performance critical. Anything a human has to wait for should be.

          Faster software is more efficient as well, using less electricity, making your phone/laptop battery last longer (since the CPU can go back to sleep sooner). And saves you money in the cloud. Imagine if you could save 30-50% on your cloud bill by renting fewer resources? Over the last few years I have seen multiple reports of this happening when companies rewrite in Rust (C++ would also do this, but why would you want to move to C++ these days?). And hyperscalers save millions in electricity by optimising their logging library by just a few percent.

          Most modern software on modern CPUs is bottlenecked on memory bandwidth, so it makes sense to spend effort on data representation. Sure start with some basic profiling to find obvious stupid things (all non-trivial software that hasn’t been optimised has stupid things), but once you exhausted that, you need to look at memory layout.

          (My dayjob involves hard realtime embedded software. No, I swear that is unrelated to this.)

      • coherent_domain@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I don’t know if Haskell etc affords you such control

        You can have immutable arrary with vectors, but to mutate them you will need to wrap your action in a Monad. It even supports unboxed values.

        https://hackage.haskell.org/package/vector

        But I agree boxed default actually causes a lot of performance overhead in many high-level languages.