EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Kasper Eenberg
dblp:190/7733
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Theory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Algorithms and data structures · 77% Computational complexity · 23% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithms and data structures › priority queues
decrease-key |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | DecreaseKeys are expensive for external memory priority queues · STOC 2017 |
Algorithms and data structures
priority queues |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | DecreaseKeys are expensive for external memory priority queues · STOC 2017 |
Computational complexity › computational models
cell probe model |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | DecreaseKeys are expensive for external memory priority queues · STOC 2017 |
Computational complexity
lower bounds |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | DecreaseKeys are expensive for external memory priority queues · STOC 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
lower bound · 0.3cell probe model · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | DecreaseKeys are expensive for external memory priority queuesabstractOne of the biggest open problems in external memory data structures is the priority queue problem with DecreaseKey operations. If only Insert and ExtractMin operations need to be supported, one can design a comparison-based priority queue performing O((N/B)lgM/B N) I/Os over a sequence of N operations, where B is the disk block size in number of words and M is the main memory size in number of words. This matches the lower bound for comparison-based sorting and is hence optimal for comparison-based priority queues. However, if we also need to support DecreaseKeys, the performance of the best known priority queue is only O((N/B) lg2 N) I/Os. The big open question is whether a degradation in performance really is necessary. We answer this question affirmatively by proving a lower bound of Ω((N/B) lglgN B) I/Os for processing a sequence of N intermixed Insert, ExtraxtMin and DecreaseKey operations. Our lower bound is proved in the cell probe model and thus holds also for non-comparison-based priority queues. Kasper Eenberg, Kasper Green Larsen, Huacheng Yu |
STOC | 1 |