**Problem: **Estimate the number of distinct items in a data stream that is too large to fit in memory.

**Solution: **(in python)

import random def randomHash(modulus): a, b = random.randint(0,modulus-1), random.randint(0,modulus-1) def f(x): return (a*x + b) % modulus return f def average(L): return sum(L) / len(L) def numDistinctElements(stream, numParallelHashes=10): modulus = 2**20 hashes = [randomHash(modulus) for _ in range(numParallelHashes)] minima = [modulus] * numParallelHashes currentEstimate = 0 for i in stream: hashValues = [h(i) for h in hashes] for i, newValue in enumerate(hashValues): if newValue < minima[i]: minima[i] = newValue currentEstimate = modulus / average(minima) yield currentEstimate

**Discussion:** The technique used here is to use random hash functions. The central idea is the same as the general principle presented in our recent post on hashing for load balancing. In particular, if you have an algorithm that works under the assumption that the data is uniformly random, then the same algorithm will work (up to a good approximation) if you process the data through a randomly chosen hash function.

So if we assume the data in the stream consists of uniformly random real numbers between zero and one, what we would do is the following. Maintain a single number representing the minimum element in the list, and update it every time we encounter a smaller number in the stream. A simple probability calculation or an argument by symmetry shows that the expected value of the minimum is . So your estimate would be . (The extra +1 does not change much as we’ll see.) One can spend some time thinking about the variance of this estimate (indeed, our earlier post is great guidance for how such a calculation would work), but since the data is not random we need to do more work. If the elements are actually integers between zero and , then this estimate can be scaled by and everything basically works out the same.

Processing the data through a hash function chosen randomly from a 2-universal family (and we proved in the aforementioned post that this modulus thing is 2-universal) makes the outputs “essentially random” enough to have the above technique work with some small loss in accuracy. And to reduce variance, you can process the stream in parallel with many random hash functions. This rough sketch results in the code above. Indeed, before I state a formal theorem, let’s see the above code in action. First on truly random data:

S = [random.randint(1,2**20) for _ in range(10000)] for k in range(10,301,10): for est in numDistinctElements(S, k): pass print(abs(est)) # output 18299.75567190227 7940.7497160166595 12034.154552410098 12387.19432959244 15205.56844547564 8409.913113220158 8057.99978043693 9987.627098464103 10313.862295081966 9084.872639057356 10952.745228373375 10360.569781803211 11022.469475216301 9741.250165892501 11474.896038520465 10538.452261306533 10068.793492995934 10100.266495424627 9780.532155130093 8806.382800033594 10354.11482578643 10001.59202254498 10623.87031408308 9400.404915767062 10710.246772348424 10210.087633885101 9943.64709187974 10459.610972568578 10159.60175069326 9213.120899718839

As you can see the output is never off by more than a factor of 2. Now with “adversarial data.”

S = range(10000) #[random.randint(1,2**20) for _ in range(10000)] for k in range(10,301,10): for est in numDistinctElements(S, k): pass print(abs(est)) # output 12192.744186046511 15935.80547112462 10167.188106011634 12977.425742574258 6454.364151175674 7405.197740112994 11247.367453263867 4261.854392115023 8453.228233608026 7706.717624577393 7582.891328643745 5152.918628936483 1996.9365093316926 8319.20208545846 3259.0787592465967 6812.252720480753 4975.796789951151 8456.258064516129 8851.10133724288 7317.348220516398 10527.871485943775 3999.76974425661 3696.2999065091117 8308.843106180666 6740.999794281012 8468.603733730935 5728.532232608959 5822.072220349402 6382.349459544548 8734.008940222673

The estimates here are off by a factor of up to 5, and this estimate seems to get better as the number of hash functions used increases. The formal theorem is this:

**Theorem: **If is the set of distinct items in the stream and and , then with probability at least 2/3 the estimate is between and .

We omit the proof (see below for references and better methods). As a quick analysis, since we’re only storing a constant number of integers at any given step, the algorithm has space requirement , and each step takes time polynomial in to update in each step (since we have to compute multiplication and modulus of ).

This method is just the first ripple in a lake of research on this topic. The general area is called “streaming algorithms,” or “sublinear algorithms.” This particular problem, called *cardinality estimation*, is related to a family of problems called *estimating frequency moments. *The literature gets pretty involved in the various tradeoffs between space requirements and processing time per stream element.

As far as estimating cardinality goes, the first major results were due to Flajolet and Martin in 1983, where they provided a slightly more involved version of the above algorithm, which uses logarithmic space.

Later revisions to the algorithm (2003) got the space requirement down to , which is exponentially better than our solution. And further tweaks and analysis improved the variance bounds to something like a multiplicative factor of . This is called the HyperLogLog algorithm, and it has been tested in practice at Google.

Finally, a theoretically optimal algorithm (achieving an arbitrarily good estimate with logarithmic space) was presented and analyzed by Kane et al in 2010.