Some of you might have stumbled upon this cute article - http://igoro.com/archive/quicksort-killer/ \
What is really interesting is how he fixes quick sort to perform in O(N log N) against the defined adversary.
the quicksort might choose the median element as the pivot at each step, thus always geting a perfect split of the input sequence into two halves. Median can be found deterministically in O(N) running time, and so the total running time is always O(N log N).
My question is won't the linear time median-finding algorithm end up using the same compare function and perform in O(N^2) instead of O(N)?
Edit:
To be precise: I am questioning the complexity of the partition-based-median-selection algorithm which uses a strategy similar to that of quick sort and it will use the same compare function as the one quick sort uses. How can it work in O(N) with this adversary?
won't the linear time median-finding
algorithm end up using the same
compare function and perform in O(N^2)
instead of O(N)?
No, by adding an O(N) function to find the median the complexity becomes
O((N+N) log N) == O(2N log N) == O(N log N)
But, as that article states, the increased constant makes it unattractive.
The standard technique is called median-of-3 and a full median search won't really improve over that.
If worst case is critical, just don't use Quicksort. Shellsort has a better upperbound.
Related
Problem:
I have to analyze the time complexity to sort (using Quick sort) a list of integer values which are almost sorted.
What I have done?
I have read SO Q1, SO Q2, SO Q3 and this one.
However, I have not found anything which mentioned explicitly the time complexity to sort a k sorted array using Quick sort.
Since the time complexity of Quick sort algorithm depends on the strategy of choosing pivot and there is a probability to face the worst case due to having almost sorted data, to avoid worst case, I have used median of three values(first, middle, last) as a pivot as referred here.
What do I think?
Since in average case, the time complexity of Quick sort algorithm is O(n log(n)) and as mentioned here, "For any non trivial value of n, a divide and conquer algorithm will need many O(n) passes, even if the array be almost completely sorted",
I think the time complexity to sort a k sorted array using Quick sort algorithm is O(n log(n)), if the worst case does not occur.
My Question:
Am I right that the time complexity to sort a k sorted array using Quick sort algorithm is O(n log(n)) if I try to avoid worst case selecting a proper pivot and if the worst case does not occur.
When you say time complexity of Quick Sort, it is O(n^2), because the worst case is assumed by default. However, if you use another strategy to choose pivot, like Randomized Quick Sort, for example, your time complexity is still going to be O(n^2) by default. But the expected time complexity is O(n log(n)), since the occurrence of the worst case is highly unlikely. So if you can prove somehow that the worst case is 100% guaranteed not to happen, then you can say time complexity is less than O(n^2), otherwise, by default, the worst case is considered, no matter how unlikely.
I revisited insertion sort algorithm and noticed something funny.
One obviously shouldn't use an array with this sort, as upon insertion, one will have to shift all subsequent elements O(n^2 log(n)). However a linked list is also not good here, since we preferably find the right placement using binary search, which isn't possible for a simple linked list (so we end up with O(n^2)).
Which makes me wonder: what is a data structure on which this sorting algorithm provides its premise of O(nlog(n)) complexity?
From where did you get the premise of O(n log n)? Wikipedia disagrees, as does my own experience. The premises of the insertion sort include components that are O(n) for each of the n elements.
Also, I believe that your claim of O(n^2 log n) is incorrect. The binary search is log n, and the ensuing "move sideways" is n, but these two steps are in succession, not nested. The result is n + log n, not a multiplication. The result is the expected O(n^2).
If you use a gapped array and a binary search to figure out where to insert things, then with high probability your sort will be O(n log(n)). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_sort for details.
However this is not as efficient as a wide variety of other sorts that are widely implemented. So this knowledge is only of theoretical interest.
Insertion sort is defined over array or list, if you use some other data structure, then it will be another algorithm.
Of course if you use a BST, insertion and search would be O(log(n)) and your overall complexity would be O(n.log(n)) on the average (remind that it will be O(n^2) in the worst), but this will be no more an insertion sort but a tree sort. If you use an AVL tree, then you get the O(n.log(n)) worst case complexity.
In insertion sort the best case scenario is when the sequence is already sorted and that takes Linear time and in the worst case takes O(n^2) time. I do not know how you got the logarithmic part in the complexity.
In the Princeton tutorial on Coursera the lecturer explains the common order-of-growth functions that are encountered. He says that linear and linearithmic running times are "what we strive" for and his reasoning was that as the input size increases so too does the running time. I think this is where he made a mistake because I have previously heard him refer to a linear order-of-growth as unsatisfactory for an efficient algorithm.
While he was speaking he also showed a chart that plotted the different running times - constant and logarithmic running times looked to be more efficient. So was this a mistake or is this true?
It is a mistake when taken in the context that O(n) and O(n log n) functions have better complexity than O(1) and O(log n) functions. When looking typical cases of complexity in big O notation:
O(1) < O(log n) < O(n) < O(n log n) < O(n^2)
Notice that this doesn't necessarily mean that they will always be better performance-wise - we could have an O(1) function that takes a long time to execute even though its complexity is unaffected by element count. Such a function would look better in big O notation than an O(log n) function, but could actually perform worse in practice.
Generally speaking: a function with lower complexity (in big O notation) will outperform a function with greater complexity (in big O notation) when n is sufficiently high.
You're missing the broader context in which those statements must have been made. Different kinds of problems have different demands, and often even have theoretical lower bounds on how much work is absolutely necessary to solve them, no matter the means.
For operations like sorting or scanning every element of a simple collection, you can make a hard lower bound of the number of elements in the collection for those operations, because the output depends on every element of the input. [1] Thus, O(n) or O(n*log(n)) are the best one can do.
For other kinds of operations, like accessing a single element of a hash table or linked list, or searching in a sorted set, the algorithm needn't examine all of the input. In those settings, an O(n) operation would be dreadfully slow.
[1] Others will note that sorting by comparisons also has an n*log(n) lower bound, from information-theoretic arguments. There are non-comparison based sorting algorithms that can beat this, for some types of input.
Generally speaking, what we strive for is the best we can manage to do. But depending on what we're doing, that might be O(1), O(log log N), O(log N), O(N), O(N log N), O(N2), O(N3), or (or certain algorithms) perhaps O(N!) or even O(2N).
Just for example, when you're dealing with searching in a sorted collection, binary search borders on trivial and gives O(log N) complexity. If the distribution of items in the collection is reasonably predictable, we can typically do even better--around O(log log N). Knowing that, an algorithm that was O(N) or O(N2) (for a couple of obvious examples) would probably be pretty disappointing.
On the other hand, sorting is generally quite a bit higher complexity--the "good" algorithms manage O(N log N), and the poorer ones are typically around O(N2). Therefore, for sorting an O(N) algorithm is actually very good (in fact, only possible for rather constrained types of inputs), and we can pretty much count on the fact that something like O(log log N) simply isn't possible.
Going even further, we'd be happy to manage a matrix multiplication in only O(N2) instead of the usual O(N3). We'd be ecstatic to get optimum, reproducible answers to the traveling salesman problem or subset sum problem in only O(N3), given that optimal solutions to these normally require O(N!).
Algorithms with a sublinear behavior like O(1) or O(Log(N)) are special in that they do not require to look at all elements. In a way this is a fallacy because if there are really N elements, it will take O(N) just to read or compute them.
Sublinear algorithms are often possible after some preprocessing has been performed. Think of binary search in a sorted table, taking O(Log(N)). If the data is initially unsorted, it will cost O(N Log(N)) to sort it first. The cost of sorting can be balanced if you perform many searches, say K, on the same data set. Indeed, without the sort, the cost of the searches will be O(K N), and with pre-sorting O(N Log(N)+ K Log(N)). You win if K >> Log(N).
This said, when no preprocessing is allowed, O(N) behavior is ideal, and O(N Log(N)) is quite comfortable as well (for a million elements, Lg(N) is only 20). You start screaming with O(N²) and worse.
He said those algorithms are what we strive for, which is generally true. Many algorithms cannot possibly be improved better than logarithmic or linear time, and while constant time would be better in a perfect world, it's often unattainable.
constant time is always better because the time (or space) complexity doesn't depend on the problem size... isn't it a great feature? :-)
then we have O(N) and then Nlog(N)
did you know? problems with constant time complexity exist!
e.g.
let A[N] be an array of N integer values, with N > 3. Find and algorithm to tell if the sum of the first three elements is positive or negative.
What we strive for is efficiency, in the sense of designing algorithms with a time (or space) complexity that does not exceed their theoretical lower bound.
For instance, using comparison-based algorithms, you can't find a value in a sorted array faster than Omega(Log(N)), and you cannot sort an array faster than Omega(N Log(N)) - in the worst case.
Thus, binary search O(Log(N)) and Heapsort O(N Log(N)) are efficient algorithms, while linear search O(N) and Bubblesort O(N²) are not.
The lower bound depends on the problem to be solved, not on the algorithm.
Yes constant time i.e. O(1) is better than linear time O(n) because the former is not depending on the input-size of the problem. The order is O(1) > O (logn) > O (n) > O (nlogn).
Linear or linearthimic time we strive for because going for O(1) might not be realistic as in every sorting algorithm we atleast need a few comparisons which the professor tries to prove with his decison Tree- comparison analysis where he tries to sort three elements a b c and proves a lower bound of nlogn. Check his "Complexity of Sorting" in the Mergesort lecture.
I have a slight question about Quicksort. In the case where the minimun or maximum value of the array is selected, the pivot value the partition is very inefficient as the array size decreases by 1 one only.
However if I add code of selecting the median of that array, I think then Ii will be more efficient. Since partition algorithm is already O(N), it will give an O(N log N) algorithm.
Can this be done?
You absolutely can use a linear-time median selection algorithm to compute the pivot in quicksort. This gives you a worst-case O(n log n) sorting algorithm.
However, the constant factor on linear-time selection tends to be so high that the resulting algorithm will, in practice, be much, much slower than a quicksort that just randomly chooses the pivot on each iteration. Therefore, it's not common to see such an implementation.
A completely different approach to avoiding the O(n2) worst-case is to use an approach like the one in introsort. This algorithm monitors the recursive depth of the quicksort. If it appears that the algorithm is starting to degenerate, it switches to a different sorting algorithm (usually, heapsort) with a guaranteed worst-case O(n log n). This makes the overall algorithm O(n log n) without noticeably decreasing performance.
Hope this helps!
I don't really understand why we don't just always select the median element as the pivot. This can be done in O(n) and thus results in a total run time of O(n log n).
I just assume that probably there is a large constant hidden in the O(n) for the median search.
From the Wikipedia Quicksort page:
Conversely, once we know a worst-case selection algorithm is available, we can use it to find the ideal pivot (the median) at every step of quicksort, producing a variant with worst-case O(n log n) running time. In practical implementations, however, this variant is considerably slower on average.
In other words, the cost of forcing it to be guaranteed O(n log n) is generally not worth paying. There's more information on that page, as well as on the selection algorithms page.
use randomized quicksort and you have worstcase run time of O(n log n) with very high probability.
Apparently it seems that the running time of finding the median is O(n) using randomized version of partition, but actually when the partition is again unbalanced at its extreme then the running time goes to O(n2). So you can make no improvement right from here.
But still there's a hope. If you go through "CORMEN" then you will find that finding ith order statistic can be done in linear time even in worst case scenario. The technique that is used is to use the median of median as the pivot element and then find the nedian which guarantees the linear running time in any case.
So we can use that technique in quicksort also to get O(nlgn) running time