Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
article

An asymptotic optimality of the transposition rule for linear lists

Published: 01 September 2004 Publication History

Abstract

The linear list is one of basic data structures in computer science with search being a primary operation defined on it. Items are located in the list by sequentially examining them from the beginning of the list. Intuitively one would like to place items that are frequently requested at the front of the list in order to minimize the number of items being examined. Given the properties of the request sequence one could place items in an order that minimizes the search cost. Yet often properties of the request sequence are either not known in advance or time dependent. Hence, it is desirable to employ self-organizing algorithms. The two best known such rules are the move-to-front and transposition rule [9, Section 6]. In addition to being simple these rules are memory-free, i.e., require no memory for their operation.

References

[1]
E. Anderson, P. Nash, and R. Weber. A counterexample to a conjecture in optimal list ordering. J. Appl. Probab., 19(9):730--732, 1982.
[2]
R. Bachrach and R. El-Yaniv. Online list accessing algorithms and their applications: Recent empirical evidence. In Proc. ACM-SIAM SODA, 1997.
[3]
J. Fill. An exact formula for the move-to-front rule for self-organizing lists. J. Theoret. Probab., 9(1):113--159, 1996.
[4]
J. Fill. Limits and rate of convergence for the distribution of search cost under the move-to-front rule. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 164:185--206, 1996.
[5]
P. Flajolet, D. Gardy, and L. Thimonier. Birthday paradox, coupon collector, caching algorithms and self-organizing search. Discrete Appl. Math., 39:207--229, 1992.
[6]
J. Hester and D. Hirchberg. Self-organizing linear search. Computing Surveys, 17(3):295--311, September 1985.
[7]
P. Jelenković. Asymptotic approximation of the move-to-front search cost distribution and least-recently-used caching fault probabilities. Ann. Appl. Probab., 9(2):430--464, 1999.
[8]
Y. Kan and S. Ross. Optimal list order under partial memory constraints. J. Appl. Probab., 17:1004--1015, 1980.
[9]
D. Knuth. The Art of Computer Programming, volume 3. Sorting and Searching. Addison-Wesley, 2nd edition, 1998.
[10]
K. Lam, M. Y. Leung, and M. K. Siu. Self-organizing files with dependent accesses. J. Appl. Probab., 21:343--359, 1984.
[11]
R. Rivest. On self-organizing sequential search heuristics. Comm. ACM, 19(2):63--67, 1976.
[12]
D. Sleator and R. Tarjan. Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Comm. ACM, 28(2):202--208, 1985.
[13]
A. Tenenbaum and R. Nemes. Two spectra of self-organizing sequential search algorithms. SIAM J. Comput., 11(3):557--566, 1982.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review
ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review  Volume 32, Issue 2
September 2004
53 pages
ISSN:0163-5999
DOI:10.1145/1035334
Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 September 2004
Published in SIGMETRICS Volume 32, Issue 2

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. average-case analysis
  2. exclusion process
  3. self-organizing list

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 100
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 21 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media