SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2604.25681

SimdQuickHeap: The QuickHeap Reconsidered

Abstract

Priority queues are data structures that maintain a dynamic collection of elements and allow inserting new elements and removing the smallest element. The most widely known and used priority queue is likely the implicit binary heap, even though it has frequent cache misses and is hard to optimize using e.g. SIMD instructions. We introduce the SimdQuickHeap, a variant of the QuickHeap that was introduced by Navarro and Paredes in 2010. As suggested by the name, the data structure bears some similarity to QuickSort. We modify the data layout of the original QuickHeap to have all pivots adjacent in memory, with elements between consecutive pivots stored in dedicated buckets. This allows efficient SIMD implementations for both partitioning of buckets and scanning the list of pivots to find the bucket to append newly inserted elements to. The SimdQuickHeap has amortized expected complexity $O(\log n)$ per operation, which improves to $O(\frac 1W\log n)$ in non-degenerate cases, where $W$ is the number of words in a SIMD register. In this case, the I/O-complexity is amortized $O(\frac 1B)$ per push and $O(\frac 1B \log_2 \frac nM)$ per pop. In synthetic benchmarks, the SimdQuickHeap is $1.2\times$ to $1.7\times$ as fast as the monotone radix heap, the next-best competitor, and $1.4\times$ to $2.8\times$ as fast as the superscalar sample queue, the fastest comparison-based priority queue. The SimdQuickHeap needs around $1.5\log_2 n$ comparisons and $\log_2 n$ nanoseconds per pair of push and pop operations. On graph benchmarks with Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm and Jarn\'ik-Prim's minimum spanning tree algorithm, the SimdQuickHeap is consistently the fastest.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Johannes Breitling, Ragnar Groot Koerkamp, Marvin Williams. 2026-04-28. SimdQuickHeap: The QuickHeap Reconsidered. https://doi.org/10.4230/lipics.esa.2026.16

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Quasi-Monte Carlo Beyond Hardy-Krause II: $(1 + \varepsilon)n$ Samples Suffice

Numerical integration studies how well one can estimate the integral of a function $f$ over $[0,1)^d$ using $n$ sample points. The two classical methods, Monte Carlo (MC) and quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC), have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and a fundamental question is to design an approach that combines the benefits of both. Recently, building on the transference principle in discrepancy theory, Bansal and Jiang~\cite{BJ25a} gave a randomized QMC method that bridges MC and QMC guarantees using only i.i.d.\ samples. Their method also goes beyond the classical Koksma--Hlawka inequality: it achieves integration error $\widetilde{O}_d(\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)/n)$, where the smoothed-out variation $\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)$ can be substantially smaller than the Hardy--Krause variation that governs the classical bound. However, their algorithm requires $n^2$ i.i.d.\ samples as input, and this quadratic blowup is inherent to any method based on the transference principle. In this work, we bypass the quadratic blowup: for any constant $\varepsilon > 0$, we show that $(1+\varepsilon)n$ i.i.d.\ samples suffice to both obtain the beyond-Hardy--Krause guarantee of~\cite{BJ25a}, resolving an open problem posed there, and to produce low-discrepancy point sequences. Our algorithms are variants of the online Haar-thinning method of Dwivedi, Feldheim, Gurel-Gurevich, and Ramdas~\cite{DFG+19}.

cs.DS

Single-Exponential Algorithms and a Polynomial Kernel for Strong Connectivity Augmentation

Strong Connectivity Augmentation (SCA) asks whether a directed acyclic graph can be made strongly connected by adding at most $k$ prescribed links whose total weight is within a given budget. Klinkby, Misra, and Saurabh (SODA 2021) gave an $O^*(2^{O(k\log k)})$-time algorithm and asked whether the problem admits a single-exponential parameterized algorithm and a polynomial kernel. We answer both questions affirmatively: SCA can be solved in $O^*(9^k)$ time and admits a polynomial kernel with $O(k^4)$ vertices and $O(k^{16})$ bits. For unweighted SCA, we obtain $O^*(4^k)$ time and a kernel with $O(k^3)$ vertices. Our algorithms are based on a particularly simple reduction to Strongly Connected Spanning Subgraph with two edge costs.

cs.DS