Practice
Resources
Contests
Online IDE
New
Free Mock
Events New Scaler
Practice
Improve your coding skills with our resources
Contests
Compete in popular contests with top coders
Events
Attend free live masterclass hosted by top tech professionals
New
Scaler
Explore Offerings by SCALER

## Hashing

Last Updated: Nov 17, 2023
Go to Problems
Hashing
Complete all the problems in this Topic to unlock a badge
Completed
Go to Problems
Contents

# Hashing Techniques

Collisions are bound to occur no matter how good a hash function is. Hence, to maintain the performance of a hash table, it is important to minimise collisions through various collision resolution techniques.  There are majorly 2 methods for handling collisions:

• Separate Chaining

### Seperate Chaining

• Here the main idea is to make each slot of hash table point to a linked list of records that have the same hash value.
• Performance Analysis:
• Hashing performance can be evaluated under the assumption that each key is equally likely and uniformly hashed to any slot of hash table.
• Consider `table_size` as number of slots in hash table and `n` as number of keys to be saved in the table. Then:
``````We have Load factor α = n/table_size
Time complexity to search/delete = O(1 + α)
Time complexity for insert = O(1)

Hence, overall time complexity of search, insert and delete operation will be O(1) if α is O(1)
``````
• This technique is very simple in terms of implementation.
• We can guarantee that the insert operation always occurs in `O(1)` time complexity as linked lists allows insertion in constant time.
• We need not worry about hash table getting filled up. We can always add any number elements to the chain whenever needed.
• This method is less sensitive or not very much dependent on the hash function or the load factors.
• Generally this method is used when we do not know exactly how many and how frequently the keys would be inserted or deleted.
• Chaining uses extra memory space for creating and maintaining links.
• It might happen that some parts of hash table will never be used. This technically contributes to wastage of space.
• In the worst case scenario, it might happen that all the keys to be inserted belong to a single bucket. This would result in a linked list structure and the search time would be `O(n)`.
• Chaining cache performance is not that great since we are storing keys in the form of linked list. Open addressing techniques has better cache performance as all the keys are guaranteed to be stored in the same table. We will explore open addressing techniques in the next section.

• In this technique, we ensure that all records are stored in the hash table itself. The size of the table must be greater than or equal to the total number of keys available. In case the array gets filled up, we increase the size of table by copying old data whenever needed. How do we handle the following operations in this techniques? Let’s see below:
• Insert(key): When we try to insert a key to the bucket which is already occupied, we keep probing the hash table until an empty slot is found. Once we find the empty slot, we insert `key` into that slot.
• Search(key): While searching for `key` in the hash table, we keep probing until slot’s value doesn’t become equal to `key` or until an empty slot is found.
• Delete(key): While performing delete operation, when we try to simply delete `key`, then the search operation for that key might fail. Hence, deleted key’s slots are marked as “deleted” so that we get the status of the key when searched.
• The term “open addressing” tells us that the address or location of the key to be placed is not determined by its hash value.
• Following are the techniques for following open addressing:
• Linear Probing:

• In this, we linearly probe for the next free slot in the hash table. Generally, gap between two probes is taken as 1.
• Consider `hash(key)` be the slot index computed using hash function and `table_size` represent the hash table size. Suppose `hash(key)` index has a value occupied already, then:
`````` We check if (hash(key) + 1) % table_size is free
If ((hash(key) + 1) % table_size) is also not free, then we check for ((hash(key) + 2) % table_size)
If ((hash(key) + 2) % table_size) is again not free, then we try ((hash(key) + 3) % table_size),
:
:
:
and so on until we find the next available free slot
``````
• When performing search operation, the array is scanned linearly in the same sequence until we find the target element or an empty slot is found. Empty slot indicates that there is no such key present in the table.

• Disadvantage: There would be cases where many consecutive elements form groups and the time complexity to find the available slot or to search an element would increase greatly thereby reducing the efficiency. This phenomenon is called as clustering.

• In this approach, we look for i2-th slot in i-th iteration.
• Consider `hash(key)` be the slot index required to place key computed using hash function and `table_size` is the size of hash table available, then:
`````` If slot (hash(key) % table_size) is not free, then we check for availability of ((hash(key) + 1*1) % table_size)
If ((hash(key) + 1*1) % table_size) is again full, then we check for ((hash(key) + 2*2) % table_size)
If ((hash(key) + 2*2) % table_size) is not empty, then we check for the status of ((hash(key) + 3*3) % table_size)
:
:
:
and so on until we find the next available empty slot.
``````

• Double Hashing:

• In this method: we follow the idea of applying a second hash function on the key whenever a collision occurs.
• It can be done as follows:
``````(hash1(key) + c * hash2(key)) % Table_Size , where c keeps incremented by 1 upon every collision to find the next free slot.

``````
• Here `hash1()` is the first hash function and `hash2()` is the second hash function applied in case of collision and `Table_Size` is the size of hash table.
• First hash function can be defined as `hash1(key) = key % Table_Size` . Second hash function is popularly like `hash2(key) = prime_no – (key % PRIME)` where `prime_no` is a prime number smaller than `Table_Size`.
• The performance of hashing technique can be evaluated under the assumption that each key is equally likely and uniformly hashed to any slot of the hash table.
• Consider `table_size` as total number of slots in the hash table, `n` as number of keys to be inserted into the table, then:
`````` * Load factor, α = n/table_size ( α < 1 )
* Expected time taken to search/insert/delete operation < (1/(1 - α))
* Hence, search/insert/delete operations take at max (1/(1 - α)) time``````

## Hashing Problems

0/8
Hash Search
0/4
Key formation
0/3
Maths and hashing
0/4
Incremental hash
0/3
Hashing two pointer
Topic Bonus
Bonus will be unlocked after solving min. 1 problem from each bucket

## Video Courses By

View All Courses
Excel at your interview with Masterclasses Know More
Certificate included
What will you Learn?
Free Mock Assessment
Fill up the details for personalised experience.
Phone Number *
OTP will be sent to this number for verification
+33 *
+33
Change Number
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
*Enter the expected year of graduation if you're student
Current Employer
Company Name
College/University Name
Job Title
Job Title
Software Development Engineer (Backend)
Software Development Engineer (Frontend)
Software Development Engineer (Full Stack)
Data Scientist
Android Engineer
iOS Engineer
Devops Engineer
Support Engineer
Research Engineer
Engineering Intern
QA Engineer
Co-founder
SDET
Product Manager
Product Designer
Backend Architect
Program Manager
Release Engineer
Data Analyst
Data Engineer
Non Coder
Other
Edit
Resend OTP
By clicking on Start Test, I agree to be contacted by Scaler in the future.