TY - GEN
T1 - Optimal Bounds for Approximate Counting
AU - Nelson, Jelani
AU - Yu, Huacheng
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Owner/Author.
PY - 2022/6/12
Y1 - 2022/6/12
N2 - Storing a counter incremented N times would naively consume O(log N) bits of memory. In 1978 Morris described the very first streaming algorithm: The "Morris Counter"[15]. His algorithm's space bound is a random variable, and it has been shown to be O(log log N + log(1/?) + log(1/)) bits in expectation to provide a (1+?)-Approximation with probability $1-dto the counter's value. We provide a new simple algorithm with a simple analysis showing that randomized space O(log log N + log(1/?) + log log(1/)) bits suffice for the same task, i.e. an exponentially improved dependence on the inverse failure probability. We then provide a new analysis showing that the original Morris Counter itself, after a minor but necessary tweak, actually also enjoys this same improved upper bound. Lastly, we prove a new lower bound for this task showing optimality of our upper bound. We thus completely resolve the asymptotic space complexity of approximate counting. Furthermore all our constants are explicit, and our lower bound and tightest upper bound differ by a multiplicative factor of at most 3+o(1).
AB - Storing a counter incremented N times would naively consume O(log N) bits of memory. In 1978 Morris described the very first streaming algorithm: The "Morris Counter"[15]. His algorithm's space bound is a random variable, and it has been shown to be O(log log N + log(1/?) + log(1/)) bits in expectation to provide a (1+?)-Approximation with probability $1-dto the counter's value. We provide a new simple algorithm with a simple analysis showing that randomized space O(log log N + log(1/?) + log log(1/)) bits suffice for the same task, i.e. an exponentially improved dependence on the inverse failure probability. We then provide a new analysis showing that the original Morris Counter itself, after a minor but necessary tweak, actually also enjoys this same improved upper bound. Lastly, we prove a new lower bound for this task showing optimality of our upper bound. We thus completely resolve the asymptotic space complexity of approximate counting. Furthermore all our constants are explicit, and our lower bound and tightest upper bound differ by a multiplicative factor of at most 3+o(1).
KW - approximate counting
KW - lower bounds
KW - streaming
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85133025093&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85133025093&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1145/3517804.3526225
DO - 10.1145/3517804.3526225
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85133025093
T3 - Proceedings of the ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems
SP - 119
EP - 127
BT - PODS 2022 - Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems
PB - Association for Computing Machinery
T2 - 41st ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS 2022
Y2 - 12 June 2022 through 17 June 2022
ER -