As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
I was wondering what the data structure is in an application like google/bing maps. How is it that the results are returned so quickly when searching for directions?
what kind of algorithms are being used to determine this information?
thanks
There are two parts to your question:
What kind of data structure is used to store the map information.
What kind of algorithm is used to "navigate" from source to destination.
To this, I would add another question:
How is Google/Bing able to "stream in" the data. So for example, you are able to zoom in from miles up to the ground level seamlessly, all the while maintaining the coordinate system.
I will attempt to address each question in order. Do note, that I do not work for the Google Maps or the Bing team, so quite obviously, this information might not be completely accurate. I am basing this off of the knowledge gained from a good CS course about data structures and algorithms.
Ans 1) The map is stored in an Edge Weighted Directed Graph. Locations on the map are Vertices and the path from one location to another (from one vertex to another) are the Edges.
Quite obviously, since there can be millions of vertices and an order of magnitude more edges, the really interesting thing would be the representation of this Edge Weighted Digraph.
I would say that this would be represented by some kind of Adjacency List and the reason I say so is because, if you imagine a map, it is essentially a sparse graph. There are only a few ways to get from one location to another. Think about your house! How many roads (edges in our case) lead to it? Adjacency Lists are good for representing sparse graphs, and adjacency matrix is good for representing dense graphs.
Of course, even though we are able to efficiently represent sparse graphs in memory, given the sheer number of Vertices and Edges, it would be impossible to store everything in memory at once. Hence, I would imagine some kind of a streaming library underneath.
To create an analogy for this, if you have ever played an open-world game like World of Warcraft / Syrim / GTA, you will observe that to a large part, there is no loading screen. But quite obviously, it is impossible to fit everything into memory at once. Thus using a combination of quad-trees and frustum culling algorithms, these games are able to dynamically load resources (terrain, sprites, meshes etc).
I would imagine something similar, but for Graphs. I have not put a lot of thought into this particular aspect, but to cook up a very basic system, one can imagine an in memory database, which they query and add/remove vertices and edges from the graph at run-time as needed. This brings us to another interesting point. Since vertices and edges need to be removed and added at run-time, the classic implementation of Adjacency List will not cut it.
In a classic implementation, we simply store a List (a Vector in Java) in each element of an array: Adj[]. I would imagine, a linked list in place of the Adj[] array and a binary search tree in place of List[Edge]. The binary search tree would facilitate O(log N) insertion and removal of nodes. This is extremely desirable since in the List implementation, while addition is O(1), removal is O(N) and when you are dealing with millions of edges, this is prohibitive.
A final point to note here is that until you actually start the navigation, there is "no" graph. Since there can be million of users, it doesn't make sense to maintain one giant graph for everybody (this would be impossible due to memory space requirement alone). I would imagine that as you stat the navigation process, a graph is created for you. Quite obviously, since you start from location A and go to location B (and possibly other locations after that), the graph created just for you should not take up a very large amount of memory (provided the streaming architecture is in place).
Ans 2) This is a very interesting question. The most basic algorithm for solving this problem would be Dijkstra Path Finding algorithm. Faster variations such as A* exist. I would imagine Dijkstra to be fast enough, if it could work properly with the streaming architecture discussed above. Dijkstra uses space proportional to V and time proportional to E lg V, which are very good figures, especially for sparse graphs. Do keep in mind, if the streaming architecture has not been nailed down, V and E will explode and the space and run-time requirements of Dijkstra will make it prohibitive.
Ans 1) Streaming question: Do not confuse this question with the streaming architecture discussed above. This is basically asking how the seamless zoom is achieved.
A good algorithm for achieving this is the Quad Tree algorithm (you can generalize this to n-tree). You store coarser images higher up in the tree and higher resolution images as you traverse down the tree. This is actually what KML (Keyhole) did with its mapping algorithm. Keyhole was a company that partnered with NVIDIA many years back to produce one of the first "Google Earth" like softwares.
The inspiration for Quad Tree culling, comes from modern 3D games, where it is used to quickly cull away parts of the scene which is not in the view frustum.
To further clarify this, imagine that you are looking at the map of USA from really high up. At this level, you basically split the map into 4 sections and make each section a child of the Quad Tree.
Now, as you zoom in, you zoom in on one of the sections (quite obviously you can zoom right in the center, so that your zoom actually touches all 4 sections, but for simplicity's sake, lets say you zoom in on one of the sections). So when you zoom in to one section, you traverse the 4 children of that section. These 4 children contain higher resolution data of its parent. You can then continue to zoom down till you hit a set of leaves, which contain the highest resolution data. To make the jump from one resolution to the next "seamless" a combination of blur and fading effects can be utilized.
As a follow-up to this post, I will try to add links to many of the concepts I put in here.
For this sort of application, you would want some sort of database to represent map features and the connections between them, and would then need:
spatial indexing of the map feature database, so that it can be efficiently queried by 2D coordinates; and
a good way to search the connections to find a least-cost route, for some measure of cost (e.g. distance).
For 1, an example would be the R-tree data structure.
For 2, you need a graph search algorithm, such as A*.
Look up a paper about Highway Dimension from google authors. The idea is to precompute the shortest path between important nodes and then route everything through those. You are not going to use residential streets to go from LA to Chicago save for getting on and off the freeway at both ends.
I'm not sure of the internal data structure, but it may be some kind of 2D coordinate based tree structure that only displays a certain number of levels. The levels would correspond to zoom factors, so you could ignore as insignificant things below, say, 5 levels below the current level, and things above the current level.
Regardless of how it's structured, here's how you can use it:
http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/reference.html
I would think of it as a computational geometry problem. When you click on a particular coordinate in the map and using that information, can get the latitude and longitude of that location. Based on the latitude and longitude and the level of zoom, the place can be identified.
Once you have identified the two places, the only problem for you is to identify the nearest route. Now this problem is finding the shortest path between two points, having polygon blocks between them(which correspond to the places which contains no roads) and the only possible connections are roads. This is a known problem and efficient algorithms exist to solve this.
I am not sure if this is what google is doing, but I hope they do something on these lines.
I am taking computational geometry this semester. Here is the course link: http://www.ams.sunysb.edu/~jsbm/courses/545/ams545.html. Check them if you are interested.
I was wondering what the data
structure is in an application like
google/bing maps.
To the user: XHTML/CSS/Javascript. Like any website.
On the server: who knows? Any Google devs around here? It certainly isn't PHP or ASP.net...
How is it that the results are
returned so quickly when searching for
directions?
Because Google spent years, manpower and millions of dollars on building up the architecture to get the fastest server reaction time possible?
What kind of algorithms are being used
to determine this information?
A journey planner algorithm.
Related
I have many points in space moving over time. They move in space full of AABB bounding boxes (including nested ones, there are less BBs than points) I wonder if there is a data structure that would help with organization of points getting into bounding boxes detection.
Currently I thought of a kd-tree based on boxes centers to perform ANN on points movement, with boxes intersection /nesting hierarchy (who is inside /beside whom) for box detection.
Yet this is slow for so many points so I wonder if there is some specialized algorithm/data structure for such case? A way to make such query for many points at the same time?
I would suggest using some kind if quadtree.
Basic quadtrees are already quite good with fast deletion/insertion, but there are special variants, that are better:
The Quadtree proposed by Samet et al uses overlapping regions, which allow moving objects to stay in the same node for longer, before requiring reinsertion in a different node.
The PH-Tree as technically a 'bit-level trie'. It basically looks like a quadtree, but has limited depth (64 for 64bit values), no reinsertion/rebalancing ever and is guaranteed to modify at most two nodes for every insertion or removal. At the same time, node size is limited by dimensionality, so maximum 8 points per node for 3D points or 64 entries when storing points and rectangles (boxes). Important for your case: Very good update performance (better than R-trees or KD-trees) and very good window-query performance. Window-queries would represent your AABBs when you look for points that overlap with a AABB. Moreover, you could also store th AABBs in the tree, then any window-query would return all points and other AABBs that it overlaps with (if that is useful for you).
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any free implementation of Samet's quadtree. For the PH-Tree, you can find a Java version on the link given above and a C++ version here. You can also look at my index collection for Java implementations of various multidimensional indexes.
I am calculating pathfinding inside a mesh which I have build a uniform grid around. The nodes (cells in the 3D grid) close to what I deem a "standable" surface I mark as accessible and they are used in my pathfinding. To get alot of detail (like being able to pathfind up small stair cases) the ammount of accessible cells in my grid have grown quite large, several thousand in larger buildings. (every grid cell is 0.5x0.5x0.5 m and the meshes are rooms with real world dimensions). Even though I only use a fraction of the actual cells in my grid for pathfinding the huge ammount slows the algorithm down. Other than that it works fine and finds the correct path through the mesh, using a weighted manhattan distance heuristic.
Imagine my grid looks like that and the mesh is inside it (can be more or less cubes but its always cubical), however the pathfinding will not be calculated on all the small cubes just a few marked as accessible (usually at the bottom of the grid but that can depend on how many floors the mesh has).
I am looking to reduce the search space for the pathfinding... I have looked at clustering like how HPA* does it and other clustering algorithms like Markov but they all seem to be best used with node graphs and not grids. One obvious solution would be to just increase the size of the small cubes building the grid but then I would lose alot of detail in the pathfinding and it would not be as robust. How could I cluster these small cubes? This is how a typical search space looks when I do my pathfinding (blue are accessible, green is path):
and as you see there is a lot of cubes to search through because the distance between them is quite small!
Never mind that the grid is an unoptimal solution for pathfinding for now.
Does anyone have an idea on how to reduce the ammount of cubes in the grid I have to search through and how would I access the neighbors after I reduce the space? :) Right now it only looks at the closest neighbors while expanding the search space.
A couple possibilities come to mind.
Higher-level Pathfinding
The first is that your A* search may be searching the entire problem space. For example, you live in Austin, Texas, and want to get into a particular building somewhere in Alberta, Canada. A simple A* algorithm would search a lot of Mexico and the USA before finally searching Canada for the building.
Consider creating a second layer of A* to solve this problem. You'd first find out which states to travel between to get to Canada, then which provinces to reach Alberta, then Calgary, and then the Calgary Zoo, for example. In a sense, you start with an overview, then fill it in with more detailed paths.
If you have enormous levels, such as skyrim's, you may need to add pathfinding layers between towns (multiple buildings), regions (multiple towns), and even countries (multiple regions). If you were making a GPS system, you might even need continents. If we'd become interstellar, our spaceships might contain pathfinding layers for planets, sectors, and even galaxies.
By using layers, you help to narrow down your search area significantly, especially if different areas don't use the same co-ordinate system! (It's fairly hard to estimate distance for one A* pathfinder if one of the regions needs latitude-longitude, another 3d-cartesian, and the next requires pathfinding through a time dimension.)
More efficient algorithms
Finding efficient algorithms becomes more important in 3 dimensions because there are more nodes to expand while searching. A Dijkstra search which expands x^2 nodes would search x^3, with x being the distance between the start and goal. A 4D game would require yet more efficiency in pathfinding.
One of the benefits of grid-based pathfinding is that you can exploit topographical properties like path symmetry. If two paths consist of the same movements in a different order, you don't need to find both of them. This is where a very efficient algorithm called Jump Point Search comes into play.
Here is a side-by-side comparison of A* (left) and JPS (right). Expanded/searched nodes are shown in red with walls in black:
Notice that they both find the same path, but JPS easily searched less than a tenth of what A* did.
As of now, I haven't seen an official 3-dimensional implementation, but I've helped another user generalize the algorithm to multiple dimensions.
Simplified Meshes (Graphs)
Another way to get rid of nodes during the search is to remove them before the search. For example, do you really need nodes in wide-open areas where you can trust a much more stupid AI to find its way? If you are building levels that don't change, create a script that parses them into the simplest grid which only contains important nodes.
This is actually called 'offline pathfinding'; basically finding ways to calculate paths before you need to find them. If your level will remain the same, running the script for a few minutes each time you update the level will easily cut 90% of the time you pathfind. After all, you've done most of the work before it became urgent. It's like trying to find your way around a new city compared to one you grew up in; knowing the landmarks means you don't really need a map.
Similar approaches to the 'symmetry-breaking' that Jump Point Search uses were introduced by Daniel Harabor, the creator of the algorithm. They are mentioned in one of his lectures, and allow you to preprocess the level to store only jump-points in your pathfinding mesh.
Clever Heuristics
Many academic papers state that A*'s cost function is f(x) = g(x) + h(x), which doesn't make it obvious that you may use other functions, multiply the weight of the cost functions, and even implement heatmaps of territory or recent deaths as functions. These may create sub-optimal paths, but they greatly improve the intelligence of your search. Who cares about the shortest path when your opponent has a choke point on it and has been easily dispatching anybody travelling through it? Better to be certain the AI can reach the goal safely than to let it be stupid.
For example, you may want to prevent the algorithm from letting enemies access secret areas so that they avoid revealing them to the player, and so that they AI seems to be unaware of them. All you need to achieve this is a uniform cost function for any point within those 'off-limits' regions. In a game like this, enemies would simply give up on hunting the player after the path grew too costly. Another cool option is to 'scent' regions the player has been recently (by temporarily increasing the cost of unvisited locations because many algorithms dislike negative costs).
If you know what places you won't need to search, but can't implement in your algorithm's logic, a simple increase to their cost will prevent unnecessary searching. There's a lot of ways to take advantage of heuristics to simplify and inform your pathfinding, but your biggest gains will come from Jump Point Search.
EDIT: Jump Point Search implicitly selects pathfinding direction using the same heuristics as A*, so you may be able to implement heuristics to a small degree, but their cost function won't be the cost of a node, but rather, the cost of traveling between the two nodes. (A* generally searches adjacent nodes, so the distinction between a node's cost and the cost of traveling to it tends to break down.)
Summary
Although octrees/quad-trees/b-trees can be useful in collision-detection, they aren't as applicable to searches because they section a graph based on its coordinates; not on its connections. Layering your graph (mesh in your vocabulary) into super graphs (regions) is a more effective solution.
Hopefully I've covered anything you'll find useful.
Good luck!
I'm considering trying to make a game that takes place on an essentially infinite grid.
The grid is very sparse. Certain small regions of relatively high density. Relatively few isolated nonempty cells.
The amount of the grid in use is too large to implement naively but probably smallish by "big data" standards (I'm not trying to map the Internet or anything like that)
This needs to be easy to persist.
Here are the operations I may want to perform (reasonably efficiently) on this grid:
Ask for some small rectangular region of cells and all their contents (a player's current neighborhood)
Set individual cells or blit small regions (the player is making a move)
Ask for the rough shape or outline/silhouette of some larger rectangular regions (a world map or region preview)
Find some regions with approximately a given density (player spawning location)
Approximate shortest path through gaps of at most some small constant empty spaces per hop (it's OK to be a bad approximation often, but not OK to keep heading the wrong direction searching)
Approximate convex hull for a region
Here's the catch: I want to do this in a web app. That is, I would prefer to use existing data storage (perhaps in the form of a relational database) and relatively little external dependency (preferably avoiding the need for a persistent process).
Guys, what advice can you give me on actually implementing this? How would you do this if the web-app restrictions weren't in place? How would you modify that if they were?
Thanks a lot, everyone!
I think you can do everything using quadtrees, as others have suggested, and maybe a few additional data structures. Here's a bit more detail:
Asking for cell contents, setting cell contents: these are the basic quadtree operations.
Rough shape/outline: Given a rectangle, go down sufficiently many steps within the quadtree that most cells are empty, and make the nonempty subcells at that level black, the others white.
Region with approximately given density: if the density you're looking for is high, then I would maintain a separate index of all objects in your map. Take a random object and check the density around that object in the quadtree. Most objects will be near high density areas, simply because high-density areas have many objects. If the density near the object you picked is not the one you were looking for, pick another one.
If you're looking for low-density, then just pick random locations on the map - given that it's a sparse map, that should typically give you low density spots. Again, if it doesn't work right try again.
Approximate shortest path: if this is a not-too-frequent operation, then create a rough graph of the area "between" the starting point A and end point B, for some suitable definition of between (maybe the square containing the circle with the midpoint of AB as center and 1.5*AB as diameter, except if that diameter is less than a certain minimum, in which case... experiment). Make the same type of grid that you would use for the rough shape / outline, then create (say) a Delaunay triangulation of the black points. Do a shortest path on this graph, then overlay that on the actual map and refine the path to one that makes sense given the actual map. You may have to redo this at a few different levels of refinement - start with a very rough graph, then "zoom in" taking two points that you got from the higher level as start and end point, and iterate.
If you need to do this very frequently, you'll want to maintain this type of graph for the entire map instead of reconstructing it every time. This could be expensive, though.
Approx convex hull: again start from something like the rough shape, then take the convex hull of the black points in that.
I'm not sure if this would be easy to put into a relational database; a file-based storage could work but it would be impractical to have a write operation be concurrent with anything else, which you would probably want if you want to allow this to grow to a reasonable number of players (per world / map, if there are multiple worlds / maps). I think in that case you are probably best off keeping a separate process alive... and even then making this properly respect multithreading is going to be a headache.
A kd tree or a quadtree is a good data structure to solve your problem. Especially the latter it's a clever way to address the grid and to reduce the 2d complexity to a 1d complexity. Quadtrees is also used in many maps application like bing and google maps. Here is a good start: Nick quadtree spatial index hilbert curve blog.
I have some data in a tree structure, and I want to represent them in a graphical way, with the root node in the middle of the stage, his children displaced in a circle around him, and so on for every children, around their parent.
I don't want overlapping nodes, so the question is how to arrange space in an optimal way.
Something less or more like (found via google)
What algorhythms I have to search to realize something like this?
If you don't care about how it's done, but just that you are visualizing the data, then take a look at graphviz's radial layout. Although the example doesn't look exactly what you want, it is the layout you'd need. It'll also give you some ideas on how it's done too with the loads of research papers in there. Good luck!
You could also see how easy it is to extend this paper into a circular structure.
You can do it in an emergent way by setting up a system in which each tree node tries to keep as much distance from all other nodes (except parent) as possible, but as short a distance as possible from the parent (down to some minimum distance which it must maintain). If you run that algorithm for each node repeatedly until it stabilizes, you'll have an arrangement like the one you describe. I'm sure there are a lot of optimizations you can do to it, but I'm pretty sure this is going to be the simplest approach. Trying to calculate all the layout up front would be very complex...
You are trying to draw a planar representation of a graph.
Find some buzzwords and perhaps a resource here
And in wikipedia
Ah and I forgot: You can do this the newtonian way with forces.
Simply give all nodes a repelling potential, like make them all Protons which push each other away. Give the edges the properties of newtonian springs, exerting forces that pull them together and you are all set.
Could even create nice animations that way.
This is also an official way of graph drawing, but I don't know the name.
If you want to draw the tree with a minimum of wasted space and short connections, then you're in for a computationally expensive solution. It will be hard to get this to be realtime on a tree of decent size, not to mention that making small changes to the tree might result in a radically different equilibrium.
Another approach would be to abandon the physical simulation and just build it iteratively. I've done something similar last week, but my trees are probably a lot less involved than yours.
For this tree-layout, each node object has to store an angle and an offset. These two numbers control where on the graphics surface they end up.
Here is my basic algorithm:
1) recurse over your entire tree-data and find all the Leaf nodes.
2) while you're doing this, be sure to measure the length of each branching structure, so you know which is the longest.
3) once you have all your leaf nodes, distribute them equally over a concentric circle. You can either use the entire circle, or only some part of the angle domain.
4) once all Leaf nodes have been solved, you recurse again over the tree, going from the outside in. Each node you encounter that is not a leaf node is in need of layout. Essentially, every node from here on has an angle which is the average of all it's child nodes, and the offset is the graph_radius * (depth_of_node / maximum_depth)
I found this gives me a very decent and humanly readable distribution, albeit not a very efficient one in terms of screen usage. I uploaded an animation of my tree-display here: GIF anim
I'm building a 2D physics engine and I want to add broad-phase collision detection, though I only know of 2 or 3 types:
Check everything against everything else (O(n^2) complexity)
Sweep and Prune (sort and sweep)
something about Binary Space Partition (not sure how to do this)
But surely there's more options right? what are they? And can either a basic description of each be provided or links to descriptions?
I've seen this but I'm asking for a list of algorithms available, not the best one for my needs.
In this case, "Broad phase collision detection" is a method used by physics engines to determine which bodies in their simulation are close enough to warrant further investigation and possibly collision resolution.
The best approach depends on the specific use, but the bottom line is that you want to subdivide your world space such that (a) every body is in exactly one subdivision, (b) every subdivision is large enough that a a body in a particular subdivision can only collide with bodies in that same subdivision or an adjacent subdivision, and (c) the number of bodies in a particular subdivision is as small as possible.
How you do that depends on how many bodies you have, how they're moving, what your performance requirements are, and how much time you want to spend on your engine. If you're talking about bodies moving around in a largely open space, the simplest technique would be divide the world into a grid where each cell is larger than your largest object, and track the list of objects in each cell. If you're building something on the scale of a classic arcade game, this solution may well suffice.
If you're dealing with bodies moving in a larger open world, a simple grid will become overwhelming pretty quickly, and you'll probably want some sort of a tree-based structure like quadtrees, as Arriu suggests.
If you're talking about moving bodies around within bounded spaces instead of open spaces, then you may consider a BSP tree; the tree partitions the world into 'space you can walk in' and 'walls', and clipping a body into the tree determines whether it's in a legal position. Depending on the world geometry, you can also use a BSP for your broad-phase detection of collisions between bodies in the world.
Another option for bodies moving in bounded space would be a portal engine; if your world can consist of convex polygonal regions where each side of the polygon is either a solid wall or a 'portal' to another concave space, you can easily determine whether a body is within a region with a point-in-polygon test and simplify collision detection by only looking at bodies in the same region or connected regions.
An alternative to QuadTrees or BSPTrees are SphereTrees (CircleTrees in 2D, the implementation would be more or less the same). The advantage that SphereTrees have are that they handle large loads of dynamic objects very well. If you're objects are constantly moving, BSPTrees and QuadTrees are much slower in their updates than a Sphere/Circle Tree would be.
If you have a good mix of static and dynamic objects, a reasonably good solution is to use a QuadTree/BSPTree for the statics and a Sphere/Cicle Tree for the dynamic objects. Just remember that for any given object, you would need to check it against both trees.
I recommend quadtree partitioning. It's pretty simple and it works really well. Here is a Flash demo of brute-force collision detection vs. quadtree collision detection. (You can tell it to show the quadtree structure.) Did you notice how quadtree collision detection is only 3% of brute force in that demo?
Also, if you are serious about your engine then I highly recommend you pick up real-time collision detection. It's not expensive and it's a really great book which covers everything you would ever want to know. (Including GPU based collision detection.)
All of the acceleration algorithms depend on using an inexpensive test to quickly rule out objects (or groups of objects) and thereby cut down on the number of expensive tests you have to do. I view the algorithms in categories, each of which has many variations.
Spatial partitioning. Carve up space and cheaply exclude candidates that are in different regions. For example, BSP, grids, octrees, etc.
Object partitioning. Similar to #1, but the clustering is focused on the objects themselves more than the space they reside in. For example, bounding volume hierarchies.
Sort and sweep methods. Put the objects in order spatially and rule out collisions among ones that aren't adjacent.
1 and 2 are often hierarchical, recursing into each partition as needed. With 3, you can optionally iterate along different dimensions.
Trade-offs depend a lot on scene geometry. Do objects cluster or are they evenly or sparsely distributed? Are they all about the same size or are there huge variations in size? Is the scene dynamic? Can you afford a lot of preprocessing time?
The "inexpensive" tests are actually along a spectrum of really-cheap to kind-of-expensive. Choosing the best algorithm means minimizing the ratio of the cost of the inexpensive testing to the reduction in the number of expensive tests. Beyond the algorithmic concerns, you get into tuning, like worrying about cache locality.
An alternative are plain grids, say 20x20 or 100x100 (depends on your world and memory size). The implementation is simpler than a recursive structure such as quad/bsp-trees (or sphere trees for that matter).
Objects crossing cell borders are a bit simpler in this case, and do not degenerate as much as an naive implementation of a bsp/quad/oct-tree might do.
Using that (or other techinques), you should be able to quickly cull many pairs and get a set of potential collisions that need further investigation.
I just came up with a solution that doesn't depend on grid size and is probably O(nlogn) (that is the optimum when there are no collisions) though worst at O(nnlogn) (when everything collides).
I also implemented and tested it, here is the link to the source. But I haven't compared it to the brute force solution.
A description of how it works:
(I'm looking for collisions of rectangles)
on x axis I sort the rectangles according to their right edge ( O(nlogn) )
for every rect in the sorted list I take the left edge and do a binary search until I find the rightmost edge at the left of the left edge and insert these rectangles between these indices in a possible_Collision_On_X_Axis set ( those are n rectangles, logn for the binary search, n inserts int the set at O(log n)per insert)
on y axis I do the same
in each of the sets I now have possible collisions on x (in one set) and on y(int the other), I intersect these sets and now I have the collisions on both the x axis and y axis (that means I take the common elements) (O(n))
sorry for the poor description, I hope you understand better from the source, also an example illustrated here: image
You might want to check out what Scott did in Chipmunk with spacial hashing. The source is freely available. I think he used a similar technique to Box-2D if not for collision, definitely for contact persistence.
I've used a quad-tree in a larger project, which is good for game objects that don't move much (less removals & re-insertions). The same principle applies for octrees.
The basic Idea Is, you create a recursive tree structure, which stores 4(for quad), or 8(oct) child objects of the same type as the tree root. Each node in the tree represents a section of Cartesian space, for example, -100 -> +100 on each applicable axis. each child represents that same space, but subdivided by half (an immediate child of the example would represent, for example, -100->0 on X axis, and -100->0 on Y axis).
Imagine a square, or plane, with a given set of dimensions. Now draw a line through the centre on each axis, dividing that plane into 4 smaller planes. Now take one of them and do It again, and again, until you reach a point when the size of the plane segment Is roughly the size of a game object. Now you have your tree. Only objects occupying the same plane, can possibly collide. When you have determined which objects can collide, You generate pairs of possible collisions from them. At this stage, broadphase Is complete, and you can move onto narrow phase collision detection, which Is where your more precise, and expensive calculations are.
The purpose of Broadphase, Is to use inexpensive calculations to generate possible collisions, and cull out contacts that cannot occur, thus reducing the work your narrow phase algorithm has to perform, In turn, making your entire collision detection algorithm more efficient.
So before you go ahead and attempt to implement such an algorithm, as yourself:
How many objects are in my game?
If there are a lot, I probably need a broadphase. If not, then the Nnarrowphase should suffice.
Also, am I dealing with many moving objects?
Tree structures generally are slowed down by moving objects, as they can change their position in the tree over time, simply by moving. This requires that objects be removed and reinserted each frame (potentially), which is less than Ideal.
If this is the case, you would be better off with Sweep and Prune, which maintains min/max heaps of the extents of the shapes in your world. Objects do not need to be reinserted, but the heaps need to be resorted each frame, thought this is generally faster than a tree wide, traversal with removals and reinsertions.
Depending on your coding experience, one may be more complicated to code over another. Personally I have found trees to be more intuitive to code, but less efficient, and more prone to error, since they raise other issues, such as what to do if you have an object that sits directly on top of an axis, or the centre of the root node. This can be solved by using loose trees, which have some spacial overlap, so that one child node is always prioritised over others when such a case occurs.
If the space that your objects move within is bounded, then you could use a grid to subdivide your objects. Put each object into every grid cell which the object covers (fully or partially). To check if object A collides with any other object, determine which grid cells object A covers, then get the list of unique objects in those cells, and finally test object A against each unique object. This approach works best if most objects are usually contained in a single grid cell.
If your space is not bounded, then you will need to implement some sort of dynamic grid that can grow on demand in each of the four directions (in 2D).
The advantage of this approach over more adaptive algorithsm (i.e. BSP, Quadtree, Circletree) is that the cells can be accessed in O(1) time (i.e. constant time) rather than O(log N) time (i.e. logarithmic time). However these latter algorithms are able to adapt themselves to large variability in the density of objects. The grid approach works best when object density is fairly constant across the space.
I would like to recommend the introductory reference to game physics from Ian Millington, Game Physics Engine Development. It has a great section on broad phase collision detection with sample code.