When Are Learned Models Better Than Hash Functions

In this work, we aim to study when learned models are better hash functions, particular for hash-maps. We use lightweight piece-wise linear models to replace the hash functions as they have small inference times and are sufficiently general to capture complex distributions. We analyze the learned models in terms of: the model inference time and the number of collisions. Surprisingly, we found that learned models are not much slower to compute than hash functions if optimized correctly. However, it turns out that learned models can only reduce the number of collisions (i.e., the number of times different keys have the same hash value) if the model is able to over-fit to the data; otherwise, it can not be better than an ordinary hash function. Hence, how much better a learned model is in avoiding collisions highly depends on the data and the ability of the model to over-fit. To evaluate the effectiveness of learned models, we used them as hash functions in the bucket chaining and Cuckoo hash tables. For bucket chaining hash table, we found that learned models can achieve 30% smaller sizes and 10% lower probe latency. For Cuckoo hash tables, in some datasets, learned models can increase the ratio of keys stored in their primary locations by around 10%. In summary, we found that learned models can indeed outperform hash functions but only for certain data distributions and with a limited margin.