Given integers a,b,c such that
-N<=a<=N,
0<=b<=N,
0<=c<=10
Can I write a hash function say hashit(a, b, c) taking no more than O(N) adrdress space.
My naive thought was to write it as,
a+2N*b+10*2N*N*c
thats like O(20N*N) space, so it wont suffice my need.
let me elaborate my usecase, I want tuple (a,b,c) as key of a hashmap . Basically a,b,c are arguments to my function which I want to memorise. in python #lru_cache perfectly does it without any issue for N=1e6 but when I try to write hash function myself I get memory overflow. So how do python do it ?
I am working wih N of the order of 10^6
This code work
#lru_cache(maxsize=None)
def myfn(a,b,c):
//some logic
return 100
But if i write the hash function myself like this, it doesn't . So how do python do it.
def hashit(a,b,c):
return a+2*N*b+2*N*N*c
def myfn(a,b,c):
if hashit(a,b,c) in myhashtable:
return myhashtable[hashit(a,b,c)]
//some logic
myhashtable[hashit(a,b,c)] = 100;
return myhashtable[hashit(a,b,c)]
To directly answer your question of whether it is possible to find an injective hash function from a set of size Θ(N^2) to a set of size O(N): it isn't. The very existence of an injective function from a finite set A to a set B implies that |B| >= |A|. This is similar to trying to give a unique number out of {1, 2, 3} to each member of a group of 20 people.
However, do note that hash functions do oftentimes have collisions; the hash tables that employ them simply have a method for resolving those collisions. As one simple example for clarification, you could for instance hold an array such that every possible output of your hash function is mapped to an index of this array, and at each index you have a list of elements (so an array of lists where the array is of size O(N)), and then in the case of a collision simply go over all elements in the matching list and compare them (not their hashes) until you find what you're looking for. This is known as chain hashing or chaining. Some rare manipulations (re-hashing) on the hash table based on how populated it is (measured through its load factor) could ensure an amortized time complexity of O(1) for element access, but this could over time increase your space complexity if you actually try to hold ω(N) values, though do note that this is unavoidable: you can't use less space than Θ(X) to hold Θ(X) values without any extra information (for instance: if you hold 1000000 unordered elements where each is a natural number between 1 and 10, then you could simply hold ten counters; but in your case you describe a whole possible set of elements of size 11*(N+1)*(2N+1), so Θ(N^2)).
This method would, however, ensure a space complexity of O(N+K) (equivalent to O(max{N,K})) where K is the amount of elements you're holding; so long as you aren't trying to simultaneously hold Θ(N^2) (or however many you deem to be too many) elements, it would probably suffice for your needs.
I am currently in a Data Structures course nearing the end of the semester, and have been assigned a project in which we are implementing a Linked Hash Table to store and retrieve keys. We have been given a pretty large amount of freedom with how we are going to design our hash table implementation, but for bonus points we were told to try and find a hash function that distributes our keys (unique strings) close to uniformly and randomly throughout the table.
I have chosen to use the ELF hash, seen here http://www.eternallyconfuzzled.com/tuts/algorithms/jsw_tut_hashing.aspx
My question is as follows: With this hash function an integer is returned, but I am having trouble seeing how this can be used to help specify a specific index to put my key in in the hash table. I could simply do: index = ELFhash(String key) % tableSize, but does this defeat the purpose of using the ELF hash in the first place??
Also I have chosen my collision resolution strategy to be double hashing. Is there a good way to determine an appropriate secondary hashing function to find your jumps? My hash table is not going to be a constant size (sets of strings will be added and removed from the set of data I am hashing, and I will be rehashing them after each iteration of adding and removing to have a load factor of .75), so it is hard for me to just do something like k % n where n is a number that is relatively prime with my table size.
Thanks for taking the time to read my question, and let me know what you think!
You're correct to think about "wrapping bias," but for most practical purposes, it's not going to be a problem.
If the hash table is of size N and the hash value is in the range [0..M), then let k = floor(M/N). Any hash value in the range [0..k*N) is a "good" one in that, using mod N as a map, each hash bucket is mapped by exactly k hash values. The hash values in [k*N..M) are "bad" in that if you use them, the corresponding M-K*n lowest hash buckets map from one additional hash value. Even if the hash function is perfect, these buckets have a higher probability of receiving a given value.
The question, though, is "How much higher?" That depends on M and N. If the hash value is an unsigned int in [0..2^32), and - having read Knuth and others - you decide to pick prime number of buckets around a thousand, say 1009, what happens?
floor(2^32 / 1009) = 4256657
The number of "bad" values is
2^32 - 4256657 * 1009 = 383
Consequently, all buckets are mapped from 4256657 "good" values, and 383 get one additional unwanted "bad" value for 4256658. Thus the "bias" for is 1/4,256,657.
It's very unlikely you'll find a hash function where a 1 in 4 million probability difference between buckets will be noticeable.
Now if you redo the calculation with a million buckets instead of a thousand, then things look a bit different. In that case if you're a bit OC, you might want to switch to a 64-bit hash.
On additional thing: The Elf hash is pretty unlikely to give absolutely terrible results, and it's quite fast, but there are much better hash functions. A reasonably well-regarded one you might want give a try is Murmur 32. (The Wiki article mentions that the original alg has some weaknesses that can be exploited for DoS attacks, but for your application it will be fine.) I'm sure your prof doesn't want you to copy code, but the Wikipedia page has it complete. It would be interesting to implement Elf yourself and try it against Murmur to see how they compare.
So, let's say you have a hashmap that uses linear probing.
You first insert a value X with key X, which hashes to location 5, say.
You then insert a value Y with key Y, which also hashes to 5. It will take location 6.
You then insert a value Z with key Z, which also hashes to 5. It will take location 7.
You then delete Y, so the memory looks like "X, null, Z"
You then try to insert a value with key Z, it will check 5, see it's taken, check 6, and then insert it there as its empty. However, there is already an entry with key Z, so you'll have two entries with key Z, which is against the invariant.
So wouldn't you therefore need to go through the entire map until you found the value itself. If it's not found, then you can insert it into the first null space. Therefore wouldn't all first-time inserts on a certain key be O(N)?
No.
The problem you're running into is caused by the deletion, which you've done incorrectly.
In fact, deletion from a table using linear probing is somewhat difficult -- to the point that many tables built using linear probing simply don't support deletion at all.
That said: at least in theory, nearly all operations on a hash table can end up linear in the worst case (insertion, deletion, lookup, etc.) Regardless of how clever a hash function you write, there are infinite inputs that can hash to any particular output. With a sufficiently unfortunate choice of inputs (or just a poor hash function) you can end up with an arbitrary percentage all producing the same hash code.
Edit: if you insist on supporting deletion with linear probing, the basic idea is that you need to ensure that each "chain" of entries remains contiguous. So, you hash the key, then walk from there all the way to the next empty bucket. You check the hash code for each of those entries, and fill the "hole" with the last contiguous item that hashed to a position before the hole. That, in turn, may create another hole that you have to fill in with the last item that hashed to a position before that hole you're creating (and so on, recursively).
Not sure why the village idiot (;)) deleted his post, since he was right -- an overcommitted/unbalanced hash table degenerates into a linear search.
To achieve O(1) performance the table must not be overcommitted (the table must be sufficiently oversized, given the number of entries), and the hash algorithm must do a good job (avoiding imbalance), given the characteristics/statistics of the key value.
It should be noted that there are two basic hash table schemes -- linear probing, where hash synonyms are simply inserted into the next available table slot, and linked lists, where hash synonyms are added to a linked list off the table element for the given hash value. They produce roughly the same statistics until overcommitted/unbalanced, at which point linear probing quickly falls completely apart while linked lists simply degrade slowly. And, as someone else stated, linear probing makes deletions very difficult.
So a lot of sources say the hashmap remove function is O(1), but I don't see how this could be unless a hashmap were backed by a linkedlist because list removals are O(n). Could someone explain?
You can view a Hasmap as an array. Imagine, you want to store objects of all humans on earth somewhere. You could just get an unique number for everyone and use an array with a dimension of 10*10^20.
If someone is born, she/he gets the next free number and is added to the end. If someone dies, her/his number is used and the array entry is set to null.
You can easily see, to add some or to remove someone, you need only constant time. calculate array address, done (if you have random access memory).
What is added by the Hashmap? There are 2 motivations. On the one side, you do not want to have such a big array. If you only want to store 10 people from all over the world, nearly all entries of the array are free. On the other side, not all data you want to store somewhere have an unique number. Sometimes there are multiple times the same number, some numbers do now show overall and sometimes you do not have any number. Therefore, you define a function, which uses the big numbers from the input and reduce them to numbers in a smaller range. This reduction should be in a way, that the resulting number is most likely unique for different inputs.
Example: Lets say you want to store 10 numbers from 1 to 100000000. You could use an array with 100000000 indices. Or you could use an array with 100 indices and the function f(x) = x % 100. If you have the number 1234, f(1234) = 34. Mark 34 as assigned.
Now you could ask, what happens if you have the number 2234? We have a collision then. You need some strategy then to handle this, there are several. Study some literature or ask specific questions for this.
If you want to store a string, you could imagine to use the length or the sum of the ascii value from every characters.
As you see, we can easily store something, and easily access it again. What we have to do? Calculate the hash from the function (constant time for a good function), access the array (constant time), store or remove (constant time).
In real world, a good hash function is not that easy. Try to stick with the included ones in java.
If you want to read more details, the wikipedia article about hash table is a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table
I don't think the remove(key) complexity is O(1). If we have a big hash table with many collisions, then it would be O(n) in worst case. It very rare to get the worst case but we can't neglect the fact that O(1) is not guaranteed.
If your HashMap is backed by a LinkedList buckets array
The worst case of the remove function will be O(n)
If your HashMap is backed by a Balanced Binary Tree buckets array
The worst case of the remove function will be O(log n)
The best case and the average case (amortized complexity) of the remove function is O(1)
I have been noticing some very strange usage of O(1) in discussion of algorithms involving hashing and types of search, often in the context of using a dictionary type provided by the language system, or using dictionary or hash-array types used using array-index notation.
Basically, O(1) means bounded by a constant time and (typically) fixed space. Some pretty fundamental operations are O(1), although using intermediate languages and special VMs tends to distort ones thinking here (e.g., how does one amortize the garbage collector and other dynamic processes over what would otherwise be O(1) activities).
But ignoring amortization of latencies, garbage-collection, and so on, I still don't understand how the leap to assumption that certain techniques that involve some kind of searching can be O(1) except under very special conditions.
Although I have noticed this before, an example just showed up in the Pandincus question, "'Proper’ collection to use to obtain items in O(1) time in C# .NET?".
As I remarked there, the only collection I know of that provides O(1) access as a guaranteed bound is a fixed-bound array with an integer index value. The presumption is that the array is implemented by some mapping to random access memory that uses O(1) operations to locate the cell having that index.
For collections that involve some sort of searching to determine the location of a matching cell for a different kind of index (or for a sparse array with integer index), life is not so easy. In particular, if there are collisons and congestion is possible, access is not exactly O(1). And if the collection is flexible, one must recognize and amortize the cost of expanding the underlying structure (such as a tree or a hash table) for which congestion relief (e.g., high collision incidence or tree imbalance).
I would never have thought to speak of these flexible and dynamic structures as O(1). Yet I see them offered up as O(1) solutions without any identification of the conditions that must be maintained to actually have O(1) access be assured (as well as have that constant be negligibly small).
THE QUESTION: All of this preparation is really for a question. What is the casualness around O(1) and why is it accepted so blindly? Is it recognized that even O(1) can be undesirably large, even though near-constant? Or is O(1) simply the appropriation of a computational-complexity notion to informal use? I'm puzzled.
UPDATE: The Answers and comments point out where I was casual about defining O(1) myself, and I have repaired that. I am still looking for good answers, and some of the comment threads are rather more interesting than their answers, in a few cases.
The problem is that people are really sloppy with terminology. There are 3 important but distinct classes here:
O(1) worst-case
This is simple - all operations take no more than a constant amount of time in the worst case, and therefore in all cases. Accessing an element of an array is O(1) worst-case.
O(1) amortized worst-case
Amortized means that not every operation is O(1) in the worst case, but for any sequence of N operations, the total cost of the sequence is no O(N) in the worst case. This means that even though we can't bound the cost of any single operation by a constant, there will always be enough "quick" operations to make up for the "slow" operations such that the running time of the sequence of operations is linear in the number of operations.
For example, the standard Dynamic Array which doubles its capacity when it fills up requires O(1) amortized time to insert an element at the end, even though some insertions require O(N) time - there are always enough O(1) insertions that inserting N items always takes O(N) time total.
O(1) average-case
This one is the trickiest. There are two possible definitions of average-case: one for randomized algorithms with fixed inputs, and one for deterministic algorithms with randomized inputs.
For randomized algorithms with fixed inputs, we can calculate the average-case running time for any given input by analyzing the algorithm and determining the probability distribution of all possible running times and taking the average over that distribution (depending on the algorithm, this may or may not be possible due to the Halting Problem).
In the other case, we need a probability distribution over the inputs. For example, if we were to measure a sorting algorithm, one such probability distribution would be the distribution that has all N! possible permutations of the input equally likely. Then, the average-case running time is the average running time over all possible inputs, weighted by the probability of each input.
Since the subject of this question is hash tables, which are deterministic, I'm going to focus on the second definition of average-case. Now, we can't always determine the probability distribution of the inputs because, well, we could be hashing just about anything, and those items could be coming from a user typing them in or from a file system. Therefore, when talking about hash tables, most people just assume that the inputs are well-behaved and the hash function is well behaved such that the hash value of any input is essentially randomly distributed uniformly over the range of possible hash values.
Take a moment and let that last point sink in - the O(1) average-case performance for hash tables comes from assuming all hash values are uniformly distributed. If this assumption is violated (which it usually isn't, but it certainly can and does happen), the running time is no longer O(1) on average.
See also Denial of Service by Algorithmic Complexity. In this paper, the authors discuss how they exploited some weaknesses in the default hash functions used by two versions of Perl to generate large numbers of strings with hash collisions. Armed with this list of strings, they generated a denial-of-service attack on some webservers by feeding them these strings that resulted in the worst-case O(N) behavior in the hash tables used by the webservers.
My understanding is that O(1) is not necessarily constant; rather, it is not dependent on the variables under consideration. Thus a hash lookup can be said to be O(1) with respect to the number of elements in the hash, but not with respect to the length of the data being hashed or ratio of elements to buckets in the hash.
The other element of confusion is that big O notation describes limiting behavior. Thus, a function f(N) for small values of N may indeed show great variation, but you would still be correct to say it is O(1) if the limit as N approaches infinity is constant with respect to N.
O(1) means constant time and (typically) fixed space
Just to clarify these are two separate statements. You can have O(1) in time but O(n) in space or whatever.
Is it recognized that even O(1) can be undesirably large, even though near-constant?
O(1) can be impractically HUGE and it's still O(1). It is often neglected that if you know you'll have a very small data set the constant is more important than the complexity, and for reasonably small data sets, it's a balance of the two. An O(n!) algorithm can out-perform a O(1) if the constants and sizes of the data sets are of the appropriate scale.
O() notation is a measure of the complexity - not the time an algorithm will take, or a pure measure of how "good" a given algorithm is for a given purpose.
I can see what you're saying, but I think there are a couple of basic assumptions underlying the claim that look-ups in a Hash table have a complexity of O(1).
The hash function is reasonably designed to avoid a large number of collisions.
The set of keys is pretty much randomly distributed, or at least not purposely designed to make the hash function perform poorly.
The worst case complexity of a Hash table look-up is O(n), but that's extremely unlikely given the above 2 assumptions.
Hashtables is a data structure that supports O(1) search and insertion.
A hashtable usually has a key and value pair, where the key is used to as the parameter to a function (a hash function) which will determine the location of the value in its internal data structure, usually an array.
As insertion and search only depends upon the result of the hash function and not on the size of the hashtable nor the number of elements stored, a hashtable has O(1) insertion and search.
There is one caveat, however. That is, as the hashtable becomes more and more full, there will be hash collisions where the hash function will return an element of an array which is already occupied. This will necesitate a collision resolution in order to find another empty element.
When a hash collision occurs, a search or insertion cannot be performed in O(1) time. However, good collision resolution algorithms can reduce the number of tries to find another suiteable empty spot or increasing the hashtable size can reduce the number of collisions in the first place.
So, in theory, only a hashtable backed by an array with an infinite number of elements and a perfect hash function would be able to achieve O(1) performance, as that is the only way to avoid hash collisions that drive up the number of required operations. Therefore, for any finite-sized array will at one time or another be less than O(1) due to hash collisions.
Let's take a look at an example. Let's use a hashtable to store the following (key, value) pairs:
(Name, Bob)
(Occupation, Student)
(Location, Earth)
We will implement the hashtable back-end with an array of 100 elements.
The key will be used to determine an element of the array to store the (key, value) pair. In order to determine the element, the hash_function will be used:
hash_function("Name") returns 18
hash_function("Occupation") returns 32
hash_function("Location") returns 74.
From the above result, we'll assign the (key, value) pairs into the elements of the array.
array[18] = ("Name", "Bob")
array[32] = ("Occupation", "Student")
array[74] = ("Location", "Earth")
The insertion only requires the use of a hash function, and does not depend on the size of the hashtable nor its elements, so it can be performed in O(1) time.
Similarly, searching for an element uses the hash function.
If we want to look up the key "Name", we'll perform a hash_function("Name") to find out which element in the array the desired value resides.
Also, searching does not depend on the size of the hashtable nor the number of elements stored, therefore an O(1) operation.
All is well. Let's try to add an additional entry of ("Pet", "Dog"). However, there is a problem, as hash_function("Pet") returns 18, which is the same hash for the "Name" key.
Therefore, we'll need to resolve this hash collision. Let's suppose that the hash collision resolving function we used found that the new empty element is 29:
array[29] = ("Pet", "Dog")
Since there was a hash collision in this insertion, our performance was not quite O(1).
This problem will also crop up when we try to search for the "Pet" key, as trying to find the element containing the "Pet" key by performing hash_function("Pet") will always return 18 initially.
Once we look up element 18, we'll find the key "Name" rather than "Pet". When we find this inconsistency, we'll need to resolve the collision in order to retrieve the correct element which contains the actual "Pet" key. Resovling a hash collision is an additional operation which makes the hashtable not perform at O(1) time.
I can't speak to the other discussions you've seen, but there is at least one hashing algorithm that is guaranteed to be O(1).
Cuckoo hashing maintains an invariant so that there is no chaining in the hash table. Insertion is amortized O(1), retrieval is always O(1). I've never seen an implementation of it, it's something that was newly discovered when I was in college. For relatively static data sets, it should be a very good O(1), since it calculates two hash functions, performs two lookups, and immediately knows the answer.
Mind you, this is assuming the hash calcuation is O(1) as well. You could argue that for length-K strings, any hash is minimally O(K). In reality, you can bound K pretty easily, say K < 1000. O(K) ~= O(1) for K < 1000.
There may be a conceptual error as to how you're understanding Big-Oh notation. What it means is that, given an algorithm and an input data set, the upper bound for the algorithm's run time depends on the value of the O-function when the size of the data set tends to infinity.
When one says that an algorithm takes O(n) time, it means that the runtime for an algorithm's worst case depends linearly on the size of the input set.
When an algorithm takes O(1) time, the only thing it means is that, given a function T(f) which calculates the runtime of a function f(n), there exists a natural positive number k such that T(f) < k for any input n. Essentially, it means that the upper bound for the run time of an algorithm is not dependent on its size, and has a fixed, finite limit.
Now, that does not mean in any way that the limit is small, just that it's independent of the size of the input set. So if I artificially define a bound k for the size of a data set, then its complexity will be O(k) == O(1).
For example, searching for an instance of a value on a linked list is an O(n) operation. But if I say that a list has at most 8 elements, then O(n) becomes O(8) becomes O(1).
In this case, it we used a trie data structure as a dictionary (a tree of characters, where the leaf node contains the value for the string used as key), if the key is bounded, then its lookup time can be considered O(1) (If I define a character field as having at most k characters in length, which can be a reasonable assumption for many cases).
For a hash table, as long as you assume that the hashing function is good (randomly distributed) and sufficiently sparse so as to minimize collisions, and rehashing is performed when the data structure is sufficiently dense, you can indeed consider it an O(1) access-time structure.
In conclusion, O(1) time may be overrated for a lot of things. For large data structures the complexity of an adequate hash function may not be trivial, and sufficient corner cases exist where the amount of collisions lead it to behave like an O(n) data structure, and rehashing may become prohibitively expensive. In which case, an O(log(n)) structure like an AVL or a B-tree may be a superior alternative.
In general, I think people use them comparatively without regard to exactness. For example, hash-based data structures are O(1) (average) look up if designed well and you have a good hash. If everything hashes to a single bucket, then it's O(n). Generally, though one uses a good algorithm and the keys are reasonably distributed so it's convenient to talk about it as O(1) without all the qualifications. Likewise with lists, trees, etc. We have in mind certain implementations and it's simply more convenient to talk about them, when discussing generalities, without the qualifications. If, on the other hand, we're discussing specific implementations, then it probably pays to be more precise.
HashTable looks-ups are O(1) with respect to the number of items in the table, because no matter how many items you add to the list the cost of hashing a single item is pretty much the same, and creating the hash will tell you the address of the item.
To answer why this is relevant: the OP asked about why O(1) seemed to be thrown around so casually when in his mind it obviously could not apply in many circumstances. This answer explains that O(1) time really is possible in those circumstances.
Hash table implementations are in practice not "exactly" O(1) in use, if you test one you'll find they average around 1.5 lookups to find a given key across a large dataset
( due to to the fact that collisions DO occur, and upon colliding, a different location must be assigned )
Also, In practice, HashMaps are backed by arrays with an initial size, that is "grown" to double size when it reaches 70% fullness on average, which gives a relatively good addressing space. After 70% fullness collision rates grow faster.
Big O theory states that if you have a O(1) algorithm, or even an O(2) algorithm, the critical factor is the degree of the relation between input-set size and steps to insert/fetch one of them. O(2) is still constant time, so we just approximate it as O(1), because it means more or less the same thing.
In reality, there is only 1 way to have a "perfect hashtable" with O(1), and that requires:
A Global Perfect Hash Key Generator
An Unbounded addressing space.
( Exception case: if you can compute in advance all the permutations of permitted keys for the system, and your target backing store address space is defined to be the size where it can hold all keys that are permitted, then you can have a perfect hash, but its a "domain limited" perfection )
Given a fixed memory allocation, it is not plausible in the least to have this, because it would assume that you have some magical way to pack an infinite amount of data into a fixed amount of space with no loss of data, and that's logistically impossible.
So retrospectively, getting O(1.5) which is still constant time, in a finite amount of memory with even a relatively Naïve hash key generator, I consider pretty damn awesome.
Suffixory note Note I use O(1.5) and O(2) here. These actually don't exist in big-o. These are merely what people whom don't know big-o assume is the rationale.
If something takes 1.5 steps to find a key, or 2 steps to find that key, or 1 steps to find that key, but the number of steps never exceeds 2 and whether it takes 1 step or 2 is completely random, then it is still Big-O of O(1). This is because no matter how many items to you add to the dataset size, It still maintains the <2 steps. If for all tables > 500 keys it takes 2 steps, then you can assume those 2 steps are in fact one-step with 2 parts, ... which is still O(1).
If you can't make this assumption, then your not being Big-O thinking at all, because then you must use the number which represents the number of finite computational steps required to do everything and "one-step" is meaningless to you. Just get into your head that there is NO direct correlation between Big-O and number of execution cycles involved.
O(1) means, exactly, that the algorithm's time complexity is bounded by a fixed value. This doesn't mean it's constant, only that it is bounded regardless of input values. Strictly speaking, many allegedly O(1) time algorithms are not actually O(1) and just go so slowly that they are bounded for all practical input values.
Yes, garbage collection does affect the asymptotic complexity of algorithms running in the garbage collected arena. It is not without cost, but it is very hard to analyze without empirical methods, because the interaction costs are not compositional.
The time spent garbage collecting depends on the algorithm being used. Typically modern garbage collectors toggle modes as memory fills up to keep these costs under control. For instance, a common approach is to use a Cheney style copy collector when memory pressure is low because it pays cost proportional to the size of the live set in exchange for using more space, and to switch to a mark and sweep collector when memory pressure becomes greater, because even though it pays cost proportional to the live set for marking and to the whole heap or dead set for sweeping. By the time you add card-marking and other optimizations, etc. the worst case costs for a practical garbage collector may actually be a fair bit worse, picking up an extra logarithmic factor for some usage patterns.
So, if you allocate a big hash table, even if you access it using O(1) searches for all time during its lifetime, if you do so in a garbage collected environment, occasionally the garbage collector will traverse the entire array, because it is size O(n) and you will pay that cost periodically during collection.
The reason we usually leave it off of the complexity analysis of algorithms is that garbage collection interacts with your algorithm in non-trivial ways. How bad of a cost it is depends a lot on what else you are doing in the same process, so the analysis is not compositional.
Moreover, above and beyond the copy vs. compact vs. mark and sweep issue, the implementation details can drastically affect the resulting complexities:
Incremental garbage collectors that track dirty bits, etc. can all but make those larger re-traversals disappear.
It depends on whether your GC works periodically based on wall-clock time or runs proportional to the number of allocations.
Whether a mark and sweep style algorithm is concurrent or stop-the-world
Whether it marks fresh allocations black if it leaves them white until it drops them into a black container.
Whether your language admits modifications of pointers can let some garbage collectors work in a single pass.
Finally, when discussing an algorithm, we are discussing a straw man. The asymptotics will never fully incorporate all of the variables of your environment. Rarely do you ever implement every detail of a data structure as designed. You borrow a feature here and there, you drop a hash table in because you need fast unordered key access, you use a union-find over disjoint sets with path compression and union by rank to merge memory-regions over there because you can't afford to pay a cost proportional to the size of the regions when you merge them or what have you. These structures are thought primitives and the asymptotics help you when planning overall performance characteristics for the structure 'in-the-large' but knowledge of what the constants are matters too.
You can implement that hash table with perfectly O(1) asymptotic characteristics, just don't use garbage collection; map it into memory from a file and manage it yourself. You probably won't like the constants involved though.
I think when many people throw around the term "O(1)" they implicitly have in mind a "small" constant, whatever "small" means in their context.
You have to take all this big-O analysis with context and common sense. It can be an extremely useful tool or it can be ridiculous, depending on how you use it.