Re: Dictionary Keys question
On Jan 30, 7:02 pm, FireNWater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for the explanation. . . I think I now have a (foggy) understanding of hash tables. It seems to be a way to create order (an index) out of disorder (random numbers or characters) behind the scenes. . The key thing to realize is, quite simply, don't rely on order in a dictionary. If you do, bad things can happen. The underlying implementation is not important to know. But if you really do want to know, let me correct you here, and give a perhaps clearer explanation (if not, there's no need to read any further): The 'order' that your speaking of is not implemented by the hash *table*, per se, but rather by the hash function, which returns an integer (the hash code). The hash table takes the hash code and calculates where in its list to place the object (as explained before, using modulo to shrink the integer into the range of the list). If multiple items end up in the same list, they are placed into a kind of linked list, with each node containing an object and pointing to the next. Of course, if too many objects end up in the same bucket, the efficiency of finding an object in the hash table reduces to that of a linked list, so hash functions are generally implemented to ensure a unique number (or as unique as possible) to every object. Python dictionaries are hash tables that automatically grow as space is needed. While integers in the range of the list will never change location unless the list shrinks, larger hash codes can move around quite apparently randomly. Space available is also a factor, as others have found out on this list. The order of a dictionary *is* determined, but factors involved in deciding that order may appear surprisingly mundane, and certainly variable across runs of your program. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Dictionary Keys question
Dustan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Jan 30, 7:02 pm, FireNWater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for the explanation. . . I think I now have a (foggy) understanding of hash tables. It seems to be a way to create order (an index) out of disorder (random numbers or characters) behind the scenes. . The key thing to realize is, quite simply, don't rely on order in a dictionary. The poster to which you replied is using order as contrasted with disorder. Clearly dictionaries *do* have order that can be relied upon. I think you're using order in the colloquial manner; more accurate would be to say don't rely on *sequence* in a dictionary. -- \ Our task must be to free ourselves from our prison by widening | `\our circle of compassion to embrace all humanity and the whole | _o__) of nature in its beauty. —Albert Einstein | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Dictionary Keys question
On Jan 31, 4:39 am, Dustan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 30, 7:02 pm, FireNWater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for the explanation. . . I think I now have a (foggy) understanding of hash tables. It seems to be a way to create order The 'order' that your speaking of is not implemented by the hash *table*, per se, but rather by the hash function, which returns an integer (the hash code). Dustan, Yes, I think I understand it now. . . the order I was referring to is provided behind the scenes by the return values of the hash function. Thanks to everyone with their explanations!! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Dictionary Keys question
On Jan 31, 7:35 am, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dustan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Jan 30, 7:02 pm, FireNWater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for the explanation. . . I think I now have a (foggy) understanding of hash tables. It seems to be a way to create order (an index) out of disorder (random numbers or characters) behind the scenes. . The key thing to realize is, quite simply, don't rely on order in a dictionary. The poster to which you replied is using order as contrasted with disorder. Clearly dictionaries *do* have order that can be relied upon. He was referring to the index. So was I, as in: Don't rely on the index, because the size of the dictionary can vary, and therefore, the index can vary, and therefore, the programmer must recognize that the order of looping can vary. If you're referring to the actual order of looping, then I and every good Python Guru (of which I am not one) disagrees with you. If not, then you're confusing the different meanings of order in this context. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Dictionary Keys question
I'm curious why the different outputs of this code. If I make the dictionary with letters as the keys, they are not listed in the dictionary in alphabetical order, but if I use the integers then the keys are in numerical order. I know that the order of the keys is not important in a dictionary, but I was just curious about what causes the differences. Thanks!! list1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h'] list2 = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] Dictionary = dict(zip(list1, list2)) print Dictionary Dictionary1 = dict(zip(list2, list1)) print Dictionary1 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Dictionary Keys question
FireNWater wrote:
I'm curious why the different outputs of this code. If I make the
dictionary with letters as the keys, they are not listed in the
dictionary in alphabetical order, but if I use the integers then the
keys are in numerical order.
I know that the order of the keys is not important in a dictionary,
but I was just curious about what causes the differences. Thanks!!
Currently the order of dict keys depend on the hash of the object. Try
hash(1) and hash('a').
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Dictionary Keys question
En Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:47:36 -0200, FireNWater [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: I'm curious why the different outputs of this code. If I make the dictionary with letters as the keys, they are not listed in the dictionary in alphabetical order, but if I use the integers then the keys are in numerical order. I know that the order of the keys is not important in a dictionary, but I was just curious about what causes the differences. Thanks!! list1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h'] list2 = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] Dictionary = dict(zip(list1, list2)) print Dictionary Dictionary1 = dict(zip(list2, list1)) print Dictionary1 Dictionaries use the hash value of the keys to distribute them in buckets. Compare these: for key in list1: print key, hash(key) for key in list2: print key, hash(key) -- Gabriel Genellina -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Dictionary Keys question
On Jan 30, 4:47 pm, FireNWater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious why the different outputs of this code. If I make the dictionary with letters as the keys, they are not listed in the dictionary in alphabetical order, but if I use the integers then the keys are in numerical order. I know that the order of the keys is not important in a dictionary, but I was just curious about what causes the differences. Thanks!! list1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h'] list2 = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] Dictionary = dict(zip(list1, list2)) print Dictionary Dictionary1 = dict(zip(list2, list1)) print Dictionary1 The underlying order is a result, in part, of the key's hash codes*. Integers are hash coded by their integer values, therefore, they appear in numeric order. Strings, however, use an algorithm that ensures as unique hash codes as possible. Notice the difference: map(hash, ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]) [-468864544, -340864157, -212863774, -84863387, 43136996, 171137383, 299137766, 427138153, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] * emphasis on the in part. Other factors include the amount of memory space available, order added, the current size of the underlying hash table, etc. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Dictionary Keys question
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:47:36 -0800 (PST), FireNWater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious why the different outputs of this code. If I make the dictionary with letters as the keys, they are not listed in the dictionary in alphabetical order, but if I use the integers then the keys are in numerical order. I know that the order of the keys is not important in a dictionary, but I was just curious about what causes the differences. Thanks!! I don't know the exact way Python's hash function works, but I can take a guess. I'm sorry if I explain something you already know. A hash is for quickly looking up data. Yet, you don't want to waste too much memory. So there is a limit number of spaces allocated, in which to store objects. This number of spaces can be thought of as a list. Then, if you put something into the dict, Python computes the 'hash' of this object, which basically forms the index in the list where to store it. So every object should be mapped onto some index within the list. (If you retrieve it, the hash is computed again, and the value on that index is looked up, like list indexing, these are fast operations.) Say, if you have 100 spaces, and someone puts in integer in the list, the hashfunction used might be % 100. So the first 100 integers would always be placed at consecutive places. For strings however, a more complicated hash-function would be used, which takes into account more characters, so strings don't end up in order. For integers, if you put in integers that are spread very widely apart, they won't end up in order either (see the mod 100 example, 104 will come before 10). If you replace the list2 in your example by: list2 = [1 * x for x in range(1,9)] You will see that this one doesn't end up in order either. So, there's no exception for integers when it comes to the order, yet the particular properties of the hash function will cause sequential integers to end up in order under some circumstances. Berteun PS: What happens if two values map onto the same space is of course an obvious question, and the trick is choosing your hashfunction so this occurs not very often on average. If it happens there are several strategies. Wikipedia probably has an explanation of how hash-functions can work in such a case. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Dictionary Keys question
On Jan 30, 3:09 pm, Berteun Damman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:47:36 -0800 (PST), FireNWater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious why the different outputs of this code. If I make the dictionary with letters as the keys, they are not listed in the dictionary in alphabetical order, but if I use the integers then the keys are in numerical order. I know that the order of the keys is not important in a dictionary, but I was just curious about what causes the differences. Thanks!! I don't know the exact way Python's hash function works, but I can take a guess. I'm sorry if I explain something you already know. A hash is for quickly looking up data. Yet, you don't want to waste too much memory. So there is a limit number of spaces allocated, in which to store objects. This number of spaces can be thought of as a list. Then, if you put something into the dict, Python computes the 'hash' of this object, which basically forms the index in the list where to store it. So every object should be mapped onto some index within the list. (If you retrieve it, the hash is computed again, and the value on that index is looked up, like list indexing, these are fast operations.) Say, if you have 100 spaces, and someone puts in integer in the list, the hashfunction used might be % 100. So the first 100 integers would always be placed at consecutive places. For strings however, a more complicated hash-function would be used, which takes into account more characters, so strings don't end up in order. For integers, if you put in integers that are spread very widely apart, they won't end up in order either (see the mod 100 example, 104 will come before 10). If you replace the list2 in your example by: list2 = [1 * x for x in range(1,9)] You will see that this one doesn't end up in order either. So, there's no exception for integers when it comes to the order, yet the particular properties of the hash function will cause sequential integers to end up in order under some circumstances. Berteun PS: What happens if two values map onto the same space is of course an obvious question, and the trick is choosing your hashfunction so this occurs not very often on average. If it happens there are several strategies. Wikipedia probably has an explanation of how hash-functions can work in such a case. Thank you for the explanation. . . I think I now have a (foggy) understanding of hash tables. It seems to be a way to create order (an index) out of disorder (random numbers or characters) behind the scenes. . -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Dictionary Keys question
On Jan 31, 12:08 am, Dustan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The underlying order is a result, in part, of the key's hash codes*. Integers are hash coded by their integer values, therefore, they appear in numeric order. Strings, however, use an algorithm that ensures as unique hash codes as possible. Notice the difference: map(hash, ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]) [-468864544, -340864157, -212863774, -84863387, 43136996, 171137383, 299137766, 427138153, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] * emphasis on the in part. Other factors include the amount of memory space available, order added, the current size of the underlying hash table, etc. BTW, can anybody explain me how is the hash function implemented in Python? Cheers, -- Richard -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Dictionary Keys question
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:19:13 -0800, Ryszard Szopa wrote: BTW, can anybody explain me how is the hash function implemented in Python? It calls the `__hash__()` method on the object that was given as argument. So there's not *the* hash function, but every type implements its own. Fallback is the hash of the identity of an object: In [415]: class A(object): pass .: In [416]: a = A() In [417]: hash(a) Out[417]: 161029068 In [418]: hash(id(a)) Out[418]: 161029068 Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
