Formally we are given an array with some initial values. Then we have 3 types of Queries :-
Point updates : Increment by 1 at a given position
Range Queries : To count number of elements>=x where x is taken as input
Range Updates : To decrement by 1 all elements>=x, where x is given as input.
N=105 , Q=105 (number of elements in array, number of Queries resp.)
I tried doing this with segment Tree but operations 2,3 can be worse than O(n) even as we don't know which 'range' is to be updated exactly so we may end up traversing whole of segment tree.
NOTE : I wish to clear that if we need to do all 3 operations in logarithmic Worst case ,ie O(log n) ,cause only then we can do this fast , linear approach doesn't works as Q=10^5 n N=10^5 , so worst case could be O(n^2) ,ie 10^10 operation which is clearly not feasible.
Given that you're talking about 105 items, and don't mention needing to add or remove items, it seems to me that the obvious data structure would be a simple sorted vector.
Operation complexities:
point update: O(1) + O(m) (where m is the number of subsequent elements equal to the value before the update).
Range query: O(log n) + O(m) (where n is start of range, m is elements in range).
Range update (same as range query).
It's a little difficult to be sure what "fast" means to you, but the fastest theoretically possible for 1 is O(1), so we're already within some constant factor of optimal.
For 2 and 3, even if we could do the find with constant complexity, we're pretty much stuck with O(m) for the update. Since Log2100000 = ~16.6, most of the time the O(m) term is going to dominate (i.e., the update part will involve as many operations as the search unless the given x is one of the last 17 items in the collection.
I doubt there's any point for this small of a collection, but if you might have to deal with a substantially larger collection and the items in the collection are reasonably predictably distributed, it might be worth considering doing an interpolating search instead of a binary search. With predictable distribution this reduces the expected number of comparisons to approximately O(log log n). In this case, that would be roughly 4 (but normally with a higher constant factor). This might be a win for 105 items, but then again it might not. If you might have to deal with a collection of (say) 108 items or more, it would be much more likely to be a substantial win.
The following may not be optimal, but is the best I could think of tonight.
Let's start by trying to turn the problem sideways. Instead of a map from indices to values, let's consider a map from values to sets of indices. A point update now involves removing an index from one set and adding it to another. A range update involves either simply moving an index set from one value to another or taking the union of two index sets. A range query involves folding over the sets corresponding to the values in range. A quick peek at Wikipedia suggests a traditional disjoint-set data structure is really great for set unions. Unfortunately, it's no good at all for removing an element from a set.
Fortunately, there is a newer data structure supporting union-find with constant time deletion! That takes care of both point updates and range updates quite naturally. Range queries, unfortunately, will require checking all array elements, even if very few elements are in range.
The setup: I have two arrays which are not sorted and are not of the same length. I want to see if one of the arrays is a subset of the other. Each array is a set in the sense that there are no duplicates.
Right now I am doing this sequentially in a brute force manner so it isn't very fast. I am currently doing this subset method sequentially. I have been having trouble finding any algorithms online that A) go faster and B) are in parallel. Say the maximum size of either array is N, then right now it is scaling something like N^2. I was thinking maybe if I sorted them and did something clever I could bring it down to something like Nlog(N), but not sure.
The main thing is I have no idea how to parallelize this operation at all. I could just do something like each processor looks at an equal amount of the first array and compares those entries to all of the second array, but I'd still be doing N^2 work. But I guess it'd be better since it would run in parallel.
Any Ideas on how to improve the work and make it parallel at the same time?
Thanks
Suppose you are trying to decide if A is a subset of B, and let len(A) = m and len(B) = n.
If m is a lot smaller than n, then it makes sense to me that you sort A, and then iterate through B doing a binary search for each element on A to see if there is a match or not. You can partition B into k parts and have a separate thread iterate through every part doing the binary search.
To count the matches you can do 2 things. Either you could have a num_matched variable be incremented every time you find a match (You would need to guard this var using a mutex though, which might hinder your program's concurrency) and then check if num_matched == m at the end of the program. Or you could have another array or bit vector of size m, and have a thread update the k'th bit if it found a match for the k'th element of A. Then at the end, you make sure this array is all 1's. (On 2nd thoughts bit vector might not work out without a mutex because threads might overwrite each other's annotations when they load the integer containing the bit relevant to them). The array approach, atleast, would not need any mutex that can hinder concurrency.
Sorting would cost you mLog(m) and then, if you only had a single thread doing the matching, that would cost you nLog(m). So if n is a lot bigger than m, this would effectively be nLog(m). Your worst case still remains NLog(N), but I think concurrency would really help you a lot here to make this fast.
Summary: Just sort the smaller array.
Alternatively if you are willing to consider converting A into a HashSet (or any equivalent Set data structure that uses some sort of hashing + probing/chaining to give O(1) lookups), then you can do a single membership check in just O(1) (in amortized time), so then you can do this in O(n) + the cost of converting A into a Set.
As seen in the answers to Linear time majority algorithm?, it is possible to compute the majority of an array of elements in linear time and log(n) space.
It was shown that everyone who sees this algorithm believes that it is a cool technique. But does the idea generalize to new algorithms?
It seems the hidden power of this algorithm is in keeping a counter that plays a complex role -- such as "(count of majority element so far) - (count of second majority so far)". Are there other algorithms based on the same idea?
Umh, let's first start to understand why the algorithm works, in order to "isolate" the ideas there.
The point of the algorithm is that if you have a majority element, then you can match each occurrence of it with an "another" element, and then you have some more "spare".
So, we just have a counter which counts the number of "spare" occurrences of our guest answer.
If it reaches 0, then it isn't a majority element for the subsequence starting from when we have "elected" the "current" element as the guest major element to the "current" position.
Also, since our "guest" element matches every other element occurrence in the considered subsequence, there are no major elements in the considered subsequence.
Now, since:
our algorithm gives a correct answer only if there is a major element, and
if there is a major element, then it'll still be if we ignore the "current" subsequence when the counter goes to zero
it is obvious to see by contradiction that, if a major element exists, then we have a suffix of the whole sequence when the counter never gets to zero.
Now: what's the idea that can be exploited in new, O(1) size O(n) time algorithms?
To me, you can apply this technique whenever you have to compute a property P on a sequence of elements which:
can be exteded from seq[n, m] to seq[n, m+1] in O(1) time if Q(seq[n, m+1]) doesn't hold
P(seq[n, m]) can be computed in O(1) time and space from P(seq[n, j]) and P(seq[j, m]) if Q(seq[n, j]) holds
In our case, P is the "spare" occurrences of our "elected" major element and Q is "P is zero".
If you see things in that way, longest common subsequence exploits the same idea (dunno about its "coolness factor" ;))
Jaydev Misra and David Gries have a paper called Finding Repeated Elements (ACM page) which generalizes it to an element repeating more than n/k times (k=2 is the majority problem).
Of course, this is probably very similar to the original problem, and you are probably looking for 'different' algorithms.
Here is an example which is possibly different.
Give an algorithm which will detect if a string of parentheses ( '(' and ')') is well formed.
I believe the standard solution is to maintain a counter.
Side note:
As to answers which claim cannot be constant space etc, ask them for the model of computation. In the WORD RAM model for instance, you assume the integers/array indices etc are O(1).
A lot of folks incorrectly mix and match models. For instance, they will happily have the input array of n integers be O(n), have an array index be O(1) space, but a counter they consider Omega(log n) etc, which is nonsense. If they want to consider the size in bits, then the input itself is Omega(n log n) etc.
For people who want to understand what does this algorithm do and why does it works: look at my detailed answer.
Here I will describe a natural extension of this algorithm (or a generalization). So in a standard majority voting algorithm you have to find an element which appears at least n/2 times in the stream, where n is the size of the stream. You can do this in O(n) time (with a tiny constant and in O(log(n)) space, worse case and highly unlikely.
The generalized algorithm allows you to find k most frequent items, where each time appeared at least n/(k+1) times in the original stream. Note that if k=1, you end up with your original problem.
Solution to this problem is really similar to the original one, except instead of one counter and one possible element, you maintain k counters and k possible elements. Now the logic goes in a similar way. You iterate through the array and if the element is in the possible elements, you increase it's counter, if one of the counters is zero - substitute the element of this counter with new element. Otherwise just decrease the values.
As with original majority voting algorithm, you need to have a guarantee that you have these k majority elements, otherwise you have to do another pass over the array to verify that your previously found possible elements are correct. Here is my python attempt (have not done a thorough testing).
from collections import defaultdict
def majority_element_general(arr, k=1):
counter, i = defaultdict(int), 0
while len(counter) < k and i < len(arr):
counter[arr[i]] += 1
i += 1
for i in arr[i:]:
if i in counter:
counter[i] += 1
elif len(counter) < k:
counter[i] = 1
else:
fields_to_remove = []
for el in counter:
if counter[el] > 1:
counter[el] -= 1
else:
fields_to_remove.append(el)
for el in fields_to_remove:
del counter[el]
potential_elements = counter.keys()
# might want to check that they are really frequent.
return potential_elements
In an array with integers between 1 and 1,000,000 or say some very larger value ,if a single value is occurring twice twice. How do you determine which one?
I think we can use a bitmap to mark the elements , and then traverse allover again to find out the repeated element . But , i think it is a process with high complexity.Is there any better way ?
This sounds like homework or an interview question ... so rather than giving away the answer, here's a hint.
What calculations can you do on a range of integers whose answer you can determine ahead of time?
Once you realize the answer to this, you should be able to figure it out .... if you still can't figure it out ... (and it's not homework) I'll post the solution :)
EDIT: Ok. So here's the elegant solution ... if the list contains ALL of the integers within the range.
We know that all of the values between 1 and N must exist in the list. Using Guass' formula we can quickly compute the expected value of a range of integers:
Sum(1..N) = 1/2 * (1 + N) * Count(1..N).
Since we know the expected sum, all we have to do is loop through all the values and sum their values. The different between this sum and the expected sum is the duplicate value.
EDIT: As other's have commented, the question doesn't state that the range contains all of the integers ... in this case, you have to decide whether you want to optimize for memory or time.
If you want to perform the operation using O(1) storage, you can perform an in-place sort of the list. As you're sorting you have to check adjacent elements. Once you see a duplicate, you know you can stop. Optimal sorting is an O(n log n) operation on average - which establishes an upper bound for find the duplicate in this manner.
If you want to optimize for speed, you can use an additional O(n) storage. Using a HashSet (or similar structure), insert values from your list until you determine you are inserting a duplicate into the HashSet. Inserting n items into a HashSet is an O(n) operation on average, which establishes that as an upper bound for this method.
you may try to use bits as hashmap:
1 at position k means that number k occured before
0 at position k means that number k did not occured before
pseudocode:
0. assume that your array is A
1. initialize bitarray(there is nice class in c# for this) of 1000000 length filled with zeros
2. for each num in A:
if bitarray[num]
return num
else
bitarray[num] = 1
end
The time complexity of the bitmap solution is O(n) and it doesn't seem like you could do better than that. However it will take up a lot of memory for a generic list of numbers. Sorting the numbers is an obvious way to detect duplicates and doesn't require extra space if you don't mind the current order changing.
Assuming the array is of length n < N (i.e. not ALL integers are present -- in this case LBushkin's trick is the answer to this homework problem), there is no way to solve this problem using less than O(n) memory using an algorithm that just takes a single pass through the array. This is by reduction to the set disjointness problem.
Suppose I made the problem easier, and I promised you that the duplicate elements were in the array such that the first one was in the first n/2 elements, and the second one was in the last n/2 elements. Now we can think of playing a game in which two people each hold a string of n/2 elements, and want to know how many messages they have to send to be sure that none of their elements are the same. Since the first player could simulate the run of any algorithm that takes a pass through the array, and send the contents of its memory to the second player, a lower bound on the number of messages they need to send implies a lower bound on the memory requirements of any algorithm.
But its easy to see in this simple game that they need to send n/2 messages to be sure that they don't hold any of the same elements, which yields the lower bound.
Edit: This generalizes to show that for algorithms that make k passes through the array and use memory m, that m*k = Omega(n). And it is easy to see that you can in fact trade off memory for time in this way.
Of course, if you are willing to use algorithms that don't simply take passes through the array, you can do better as suggested already: sort the array, then take 1 pass through. This takes time O(nlogn) and space O(1). But note curiously that this proves that any sorting algorithm that just makes passes through the array must take time Omega(n^2)! Sorting algorithms that break the n^2 bound must make random accesses.
When implementing Quicksort, one of the things you have to do is to choose a pivot. But when I look at pseudocode like the one below, it is not clear how I should choose the pivot. First element of list? Something else?
function quicksort(array)
var list less, greater
if length(array) ≤ 1
return array
select and remove a pivot value pivot from array
for each x in array
if x ≤ pivot then append x to less
else append x to greater
return concatenate(quicksort(less), pivot, quicksort(greater))
Can someone help me grasp the concept of choosing a pivot and whether or not different scenarios call for different strategies.
Choosing a random pivot minimizes the chance that you will encounter worst-case O(n2) performance (always choosing first or last would cause worst-case performance for nearly-sorted or nearly-reverse-sorted data). Choosing the middle element would also be acceptable in the majority of cases.
Also, if you are implementing this yourself, there are versions of the algorithm that work in-place (i.e. without creating two new lists and then concatenating them).
It depends on your requirements. Choosing a pivot at random makes it harder to create a data set that generates O(N^2) performance. 'Median-of-three' (first, last, middle) is also a way of avoiding problems. Beware of relative performance of comparisons, though; if your comparisons are costly, then Mo3 does more comparisons than choosing (a single pivot value) at random. Database records can be costly to compare.
Update: Pulling comments into answer.
mdkess asserted:
'Median of 3' is NOT first last middle. Choose three random indexes, and take the middle value of this. The whole point is to make sure that your choice of pivots is not deterministic - if it is, worst case data can be quite easily generated.
To which I responded:
Analysis Of Hoare's Find Algorithm With Median-Of-Three Partition (1997)
by P Kirschenhofer, H Prodinger, C Martínez supports your contention (that 'median-of-three' is three random items).
There's an article described at portal.acm.org that is about 'The Worst Case Permutation for Median-of-Three Quicksort' by Hannu Erkiö, published in The Computer Journal, Vol 27, No 3, 1984. [Update 2012-02-26: Got the text for the article. Section 2 'The Algorithm' begins: 'By using the median of the first, middle and last elements of A[L:R], efficient partitions into parts of fairly equal sizes can be achieved in most practical situations.' Thus, it is discussing the first-middle-last Mo3 approach.]
Another short article that is interesting is by M. D. McIlroy, "A Killer Adversary for Quicksort", published in Software-Practice and Experience, Vol. 29(0), 1–4 (0 1999). It explains how to make almost any Quicksort behave quadratically.
AT&T Bell Labs Tech Journal, Oct 1984 "Theory and Practice in the Construction of a Working Sort Routine" states "Hoare suggested partitioning around the median of several randomly selected lines. Sedgewick [...] recommended choosing the median of the first [...] last [...] and middle". This indicates that both techniques for 'median-of-three' are known in the literature. (Update 2014-11-23: The article appears to be available at IEEE Xplore or from Wiley — if you have membership or are prepared to pay a fee.)
'Engineering a Sort Function' by J L Bentley and M D McIlroy, published in Software Practice and Experience, Vol 23(11), November 1993, goes into an extensive discussion of the issues, and they chose an adaptive partitioning algorithm based in part on the size of the data set. There is a lot of discussion of trade-offs for various approaches.
A Google search for 'median-of-three' works pretty well for further tracking.
Thanks for the information; I had only encountered the deterministic 'median-of-three' before.
Heh, I just taught this class.
There are several options.
Simple: Pick the first or last element of the range. (bad on partially sorted input)
Better: Pick the item in the middle of the range. (better on partially sorted input)
However, picking any arbitrary element runs the risk of poorly partitioning the array of size n into two arrays of size 1 and n-1. If you do that often enough, your quicksort runs the risk of becoming O(n^2).
One improvement I've seen is pick median(first, last, mid);
In the worst case, it can still go to O(n^2), but probabilistically, this is a rare case.
For most data, picking the first or last is sufficient. But, if you find that you're running into worst case scenarios often (partially sorted input), the first option would be to pick the central value( Which is a statistically good pivot for partially sorted data).
If you're still running into problems, then go the median route.
Never ever choose a fixed pivot - this can be attacked to exploit your algorithm's worst case O(n2) runtime, which is just asking for trouble. Quicksort's worst case runtime occurs when partitioning results in one array of 1 element, and one array of n-1 elements. Suppose you choose the first element as your partition. If someone feeds an array to your algorithm that is in decreasing order, your first pivot will be the biggest, so everything else in the array will move to the left of it. Then when you recurse, the first element will be the biggest again, so once more you put everything to the left of it, and so on.
A better technique is the median-of-3 method, where you pick three elements at random, and choose the middle. You know that the element that you choose won't be the the first or the last, but also, by the central limit theorem, the distribution of the middle element will be normal, which means that you will tend towards the middle (and hence, nlog(n) time).
If you absolutely want to guarantee O(nlog(n)) runtime for the algorithm, the columns-of-5 method for finding the median of an array runs in O(n) time, which means that the recurrence equation for quicksort in the worst case will be:
T(n) = O(n) (find the median) + O(n) (partition) + 2T(n/2) (recurse left and right)
By the Master Theorem, this is O(nlog(n)). However, the constant factor will be huge, and if worst case performance is your primary concern, use a merge sort instead, which is only a little bit slower than quicksort on average, and guarantees O(nlog(n)) time (and will be much faster than this lame median quicksort).
Explanation of the Median of Medians Algorithm
Don't try and get too clever and combine pivoting strategies. If you combined median of 3 with random pivot by picking the median of the first, last and a random index in the middle, then you'll still be vulnerable to many of the distributions which send median of 3 quadratic (so its actually worse than plain random pivot)
E.g a pipe organ distribution (1,2,3...N/2..3,2,1) first and last will both be 1 and the random index will be some number greater than 1, taking the median gives 1 (either first or last) and you get an extermely unbalanced partitioning.
It is easier to break the quicksort into three sections doing this
Exchange or swap data element function
The partition function
Processing the partitions
It is only slightly more inefficent than one long function but is alot easier to understand.
Code follows:
/* This selects what the data type in the array to be sorted is */
#define DATATYPE long
/* This is the swap function .. your job is to swap data in x & y .. how depends on
data type .. the example works for normal numerical data types .. like long I chose
above */
void swap (DATATYPE *x, DATATYPE *y){
DATATYPE Temp;
Temp = *x; // Hold current x value
*x = *y; // Transfer y to x
*y = Temp; // Set y to the held old x value
};
/* This is the partition code */
int partition (DATATYPE list[], int l, int h){
int i;
int p; // pivot element index
int firsthigh; // divider position for pivot element
// Random pivot example shown for median p = (l+h)/2 would be used
p = l + (short)(rand() % (int)(h - l + 1)); // Random partition point
swap(&list[p], &list[h]); // Swap the values
firsthigh = l; // Hold first high value
for (i = l; i < h; i++)
if(list[i] < list[h]) { // Value at i is less than h
swap(&list[i], &list[firsthigh]); // So swap the value
firsthigh++; // Incement first high
}
swap(&list[h], &list[firsthigh]); // Swap h and first high values
return(firsthigh); // Return first high
};
/* Finally the body sort */
void quicksort(DATATYPE list[], int l, int h){
int p; // index of partition
if ((h - l) > 0) {
p = partition(list, l, h); // Partition list
quicksort(list, l, p - 1); // Sort lower partion
quicksort(list, p + 1, h); // Sort upper partition
};
};
It is entirely dependent on how your data is sorted to begin with. If you think it will be pseudo-random then your best bet is to either pick a random selection or choose the middle.
If you are sorting a random-accessible collection (like an array), it's general best to pick the physical middle item. With this, if the array is all ready sorted (or nearly sorted), the two partitions will be close to even, and you'll get the best speed.
If you are sorting something with only linear access (like a linked-list), then it's best to choose the first item, because it's the fastest item to access. Here, however,if the list is already sorted, you're screwed -- one partition will always be null, and the other have everything, producing the worst time.
However, for a linked-list, picking anything besides the first, will just make matters worse. It pick the middle item in a listed-list, you'd have to step through it on each partition step -- adding a O(N/2) operation which is done logN times making total time O(1.5 N *log N) and that's if we know how long the list is before we start -- usually we don't so we'd have to step all the way through to count them, then step half-way through to find the middle, then step through a third time to do the actual partition: O(2.5N * log N)
Ideally the pivot should be the middle value in the entire array.
This will reduce the chances of getting worst case performance.
In a truly optimized implementation, the method for choosing pivot should depend on the array size - for a large array, it pays off to spend more time choosing a good pivot. Without doing a full analysis, I would guess "middle of O(log(n)) elements" is a good start, and this has the added bonus of not requiring any extra memory: Using tail-call on the larger partition and in-place partitioning, we use the same O(log(n)) extra memory at almost every stage of the algorithm.
Quick sort's complexity varies greatly with the selection of pivot value. for example if you always choose first element as an pivot, algorithm's complexity becomes as worst as O(n^2). here is an smart method to choose pivot element-
1. choose the first, mid, last element of the array.
2. compare these three numbers and find the number which is greater than one and smaller than other i.e. median.
3. make this element as pivot element.
choosing the pivot by this method splits the array in nearly two half and hence the complexity
reduces to O(nlog(n)).
On the average, Median of 3 is good for small n. Median of 5 is a bit better for larger n. The ninther, which is the "median of three medians of three" is even better for very large n.
The higher you go with sampling the better you get as n increases, but the improvement dramatically slows down as you increase the samples. And you incur the overhead of sampling and sorting samples.
I recommend using the middle index, as it can be calculated easily.
You can calculate it by rounding (array.length / 2).
If you choose the first or the last element in the array, then there are high chance that the pivot is the smallest or the largest element of the array and that is bad.
Why?
Because in that case the number of element smaller / larger than the pivot element in 0. and this will repeat as follow :
Consider the size of the array n.Then,
(n) + (n - 1) + (n - 2) + ......+ 1 = O(n^2)
Hence, the time complexity increases to O(n^2) from O(nlogn). So, I highly recommend to use median / random element of the array as the pivot.