Prefix search against half a billion strings

Question

I have a list of 500 mil strings. The strings are alphanumeric, ASCII characters, of varying size (usually from 2-30 characters). Also, they're single words (or a combination of words without spaces like 'helloiamastring').

What I need is a fast way to check against a target, say 'hi'. The result should be all strings from the 500mil list which start with 'hi' (for eg. 'hithere', 'hihowareyou' etc.). This needs to be fast because there will be a new query each time the user types something, so if he types "hi", all strings starting with "hi" from the 500 mil list will be shown, if he types "hey", all strings starting with "hey" will show etc.

I've tried with the Tries algo, but the memory footprint to store 300 mil strings is just huge. It should require me 100GB+ ram for that. And I'm pretty sure the list will grow up to a billion.

What is a fast algorithm for this use case?

P.S. In case there's no fast option, the best alternative would be to limit people to enter at least, say, 4 characters, before results show up. Is there a fast way to retrieve the results then?

Answer 1

First of all I should say that the tag you should have added for your question is "Information Retrieval".

I think using Apache Lucene's PrefixQuery is the best way you can handle wildcard queries. Apache has a Python version if you are comfortable with python. But to use Apache lucent to solve your problem you should first know about indexing your data(which is the part that your data will be compressed and saved in a more efficient manner).

Also looking to indexing and wildcard query section of IR book will give you a better vision.

Answer 2

You want a Directed Acyclic Word Graph or DAWG. This generalizes @greybeard's suggestion to use stemming.

See, for example, the discussion in section 3.2 of this.

Answer 3

In this hypothetical, where the strings being indexed are not associated with any other information (e.g. other columns in the same row), there is relatively little difference between a complete index and keeping the strings sorted in the first place (as in, some difference, but not as much as you are hoping for). In light of the growing nature of the list and the cost of updating it, perhaps the opposite approach will better accomplish the performance tradeoffs that you are looking for.

For any given character at any given location in the string, your base case is that no string exists containing that letter. For example, once 'hello' has been typed, if the next letter typed is 't', then your base case is that there is no string beginning 'hellot'. There is a finite number of characters that could follow 'hello' at location 5 (say, 26). You need 26 fixed-length spaces in which to store information about characters that follow 'hello' at location 5. Each space either says zero if there is no string in which, e.g., 't' follows 'hello', or contains a number of data-storage addresses by which to advance to find the list of characters for which one or more strings involve that character following 'hellot' at location 6 (or use absolute data-storage addresses, although only relative addressess allow the algorithm I propose to support an infinite number of strings of infinite length without any modification to allow for larger pointers as the list grows).

The algorithm can then move forward through this data stored on disk, building a tree of string-beginnings in memory as it goes, and avoiding delays caused by random-access reads. For an in-memory index, simply store the part of the tree closest to the root in memory. After the user has typed 'hello' and the algorithm has tracked that information about one or more strings beginning 'hellot' exists at data-storage address X, the algorithm finds one of two types of lists at location X. Either it is another sequence of, e.g., 26 fixed-length spaces with information about characters following 'hellot' at location 6, or it is a pre-allocated block of space listing all post-fixes that follow 'hellot', depending on how many such post-fixes exist. Once there are enough post-fixes that using some traditional search and/or sort algorithm to both update and search the post-fix list fails to provide the performance benefits that you desire, it gets divided up and replaced with a sequence of, e.g., 26 fixed-length spaces.

This involves pre-allocating a relatively substantial amount of disk-storage upfront, with the tradeoff that your tree can be maintained in sorted form without needing to move anything around for most updates, and your searches can be peformed in full in a single sequential read. It also provides more flexibility and probably requires less storage space than a solution based on storing the strings themselves as fixed-length strings.

Answer 4

If you doesn't want to use some database, you should create some data related routines pre-existing in all database engines:

1. Doesn't try to load all data in memory.
2. Use fixed length for all string. It increase storage memory consumption but significantly decrease seeking time (i-th string can be found at position L*i bytes in file, where L - fixed length). Create additional mechanism to work with extremely long strings: store it in different place and use special pointers.
3. Sort all of strings. You can use merge sort to do it without load all strings in memory in one time.
4. Create indexes (address of first line starts with 'a','b',... ) also indexes can be created for 2-grams, 3-grams, etc. Indexes can be placed in memory to increase search speed.
5. Use advanced strategies to avoid full indexes regeneration on data update: split a data to a number of files by first letters and update only affected indexes, create an empty spaces in data to decrease affect of read-modify-write procedures, create a cache for a new lines before they will be added to main storage and search in this cache.
6. Use query cache to fast processing a popular requests.

Answer 5

If you want to force the user to digit at least 4 letters, for example, you can keep a key-value map, memory or disk, where the keys are all combinations of 4 letters (they are not too many if it is case insensitive, otherwise you can limit to three), and the values are list of positions of all strings that begin with the combination.

After the user has typed the three (or four) letters you have at once all the possible strings. From this point on you just loop on this subset.

On average this subset is small enough, i.e. 500M divided by 26^4...just as example. Actually bigger because probably not all sets of 4 letters can be prefix for your strings.

Forgot to say: when you add a new string to the big list, you also update the list of indexes corresponding to the key in the map.

Answer 6

If the strings are sorted then a binary search is reasonable. As a speedup, you could maintain a dictionary of all possible bigrams ("aa", "ab", etc.) where the corresponding values are the first and last index starting with that bigram (if any do) and so in O(1) time zero in on a much smaller sublist that contains the strings that you are looking for. Once you find a match, do a linear search to the right and left to get all other matches.