I'm scanning a large data source, currently about 8 million entries, extracting on string per entry, which I want in alphabetical order.
Currenlty I put them in an array then sort an index to them using qsort() which works fine.
But out of curiosity I'm thinking of instead inserting each string into a data structure that maintains them in alphabetical order as I scan them from the data source, partly for the experience of emlplementing one, partly because it will feel faster without the wait for the sort to complete after the scan has completed (-:
What data structure would be the most straightforward to implement in C?
UPDATE
To clarify, the only operations I need to perform are inserting an item and dumping the index when it's done, by which I mean for each item in the original order dump an integer representing the order it is in after sorting.
SUMMARY
The easiest to implement are binary search trees.
Self balancing binary trees are much better but nontrivial to implement.
Insertion can be done iteratively but in-order traversal for dumping the results and post-order traversal for deleting the tree when done both require either recursion or an explicit stack.
Without implementing balancing, runs of ordered input will result in the degenerate worst case which is a linked list. This means deep trees which severely impact the speed of the insert operation.
Shuffling the input slightly can break up ordered input significantly and is easier to implement that balancing.
Binary search trees. Or self-balancing search trees. But don't expect those to be faster than a properly implemented dynamic array, since arrays have much better locality of reference than pointer structures. Also, unbalanced BSTs may "go linear", so your entire algorithm becomes O(n²), just like quicksort.
You are already using the optimal approach. Sort at the end will be much cheaper than maintaining an online sorted data structure. You can get the same O(logN) with a rb-tree but the constant will be much worse, not to mention significant space overhead.
That said, AVL trees and rb-trees are much simpler to implement if you don't need to support deletion. Left-leaning rb tree can fit in 50 or so lines of code. See http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rs/talks/LLRB/ (by Sedgewick)
You could implement a faster sorting algorithm such us Timsort or other sorting algorithms with a nlog(n) worst case and just search it using Binary search since its faster if the list is sorted.
you should take a look at Trie datastructure wikilink
i think this will serve what you want
Related
I would like to implement data structure which is able to make fast insertion and keeping data sorted, without duplicates, after every insert.
I thought about binomial heap, but what I understood about that structure is that it can't tell during insertion that particular element is yet in heap. On the another hand there is AVL tree, which fits perfectly for my case, but honestly there are rather too hard for implement for me, at that moment.
So my question is: is there any possiblity to edit binomial heap insertion algorithm to skip duplicates? Maybe anyoune could suggest another structure?
Grettings :)
In C++, there is std::set. it is internally an implementation of red black tree. So it will sort when you enter data.You can have a look into that for a reference.
A good data structure for this is the red-black tree, which is O(log(n)) for insertion. You said you would like to implement a data structure that does this. A good explanation of how to implement that is given here, as well as an open source usable library.
If you're okay using a library you may take a look at libavl Here
The library implements some other varieties of binary trees as well.
Skip lists are also a possibility if you are concerned with thread safety. Balanced binary search trees will perform more poorly than a skip list in such a case as skip lists require no rebalancing, and skip lists are also inherently sorted like a BST. There is a disadvantage in the amount of memory required (since multiple linked lists are technically used), but theoretically speaking it's a good fit.
You can read more about skip lists in this tutorial.
If you have a truly large number of elements, you might also consider just using a doubly-linked list and sorting the list after all items are inserted. This has the benefit of ease of implementation and insertion time.
You would then need to implement a sorting algorithm. A selection sort or insertion sort would be slower but easier to implement than a mergesort, heapsort, or quicksort algorithm. On the other hand, the latter three are not terribly difficult to implement either. The only thing to be careful about is that you don't overflow the stack since those algorithms are typically implemented using recursion. You could create your own stack implementation (not difficult) and implement them iteratively, pushing and popping values onto your stack as necessary. See Iterative quicksort for an example of what I'm referring to.
if you looking for fast insertion and easy implemantaion why not linked list (single or double).
insertion : push head/ push tail - O(1)
remove: pop head/pop tail - O(1)
the only BUT is "find" will be in O(n)
I have huge amount of data (mainly of type long long) which is mostly sorted (data is spread in different files and in each file data is in sorted format). I need to dump this data into a file in sorted manner. Which data structure should I use. I am thinking about BST.
Is there any other DS I should use which can give me the optimum performance ?
Thanks
Arpit
Using any additional data structure won't help. Since most of your data is already sorted and you just need to fix the occasional value, use a simple array to extract data, then use Insertion Sort.
Insertion sort runs in O(n) for mostly presorted data.
However, this depends if you can hold large enough an array in memory or not depending upon your input size.
Update:
I wasn't very clear on your definition of "mostly sorted". Generally it means only few elements are not in the precise sorted position.
However, as you stated further, 'data is in different files where each file is individually sorted', then may be it is a good candidate for the sub function call - Merge as in merge Sort.
Note that Merge routine, merges two already sorted arrays. If you have say 10 files where each of them is individually sorted for sure, then using Merge routine would only take O(n).
However, if you have even a few off instances where a single file is not perfectly sorted (on its own), you need to use Insertion Sort.
Update 2:
OP says he cannot use an array because he cannot know the number of records in advance. Using simple link list is out of question, since that never competes with arrays (sequential vs random access time) in time complexity.
Pointed out in comments, using link list is a good idea IF the files are individually sorted and all you need to run on them is the merge procedure.
Dynamically allocated arrays are best, if he can predict size at some point. Since c++ tag was used (only removed latter), going for vector would be a good idea, since it can re size comfortably.
Otherwise, one option might be Heap Sort, since it would call heapify first i.e. build a heap (so it can dynamically accommodate as many elements needed) and still produce O(nlogn) complexity. This is still better than trying to use a link list.
Perhaps you don't need a data structure at all.
If the files are already sorted, you can use the merge part of merge sort, which is O(n), or more generally O(n*log k), where k is the number of files.
How many files do you have to merge?
If it's only a few (on the order of a dozen or so) and each individual file is fully sorted, then you shouldn't need to build any sort of complex data structure at all: just open all the input files, read the next record from each file, compare, write the smallest to the destination, then replace that record from the appropriate file.
If each file is not fully sorted or if there are too many files to open at once, then yes, you will need to build an intermediate data structure in memory. I'd recommend a self-balancing tree, but since the data are already mostly sorted, you'll be re-balancing on almost every insert. A heap may work better for your purposes.
Best Sorting Algorithm:
Insertion sort can be used efficiently for nearly sorted data (O(n) time complexity).
Best data structure:
Linked list is the best choice for the data structure if you are sorting it using insertion sort.
Reason for using linked list:
Removing and inserting elements can be done faster when elements are stored as a linked list.
What is the most efficient way to represent two dimensional arrays in prolog? I thought of one long list or list of lists, but they have linear access time which seems to be too slow for my problem. I'm not necessarily looking for a ready solution, but rather a concept how it should be implemented.
You can get logarithmic time access with AVL trees or Red-Black trees, see library(assoc) and library(rbtrees) in SWI and YAP. For constant time access, make a term with N arguments, and use arg/3 for efficient access. Each of these arguments can again be a term with arity N, so you have an array with efficient read-access. Using setarg/3, you can even destructively modify elements, at the cost of losing nice logical properties and much more painful debugging and testing. In many cases, you can reformulate your algorithms to not require random-access, and work with lists of lists. If this is not possible, AVL or other balanced trees are often a very good option.
I am on a system with only about 512kb available to my application (the rest is used for buffers). I need to be as efficient as possible.
I have about 100 items that are rapidly added/deleted from a list. What is an efficient way to store these in C and is there a library (with a good license) that will help? The list never grows above 256 items and its average size is 15 items.
Should I use a Binary Search Tree?
Red Black Tree
With an average size of 15, all these other solutions are unnecessary overkill; a simple dynamic array is best here. Searching is a linear pass over the array and insertion and deletion requires moving all elements behind the insertion point. But still this moving around will be offset by the lack of overhead for so few elements.
Even better, since you’re doing a linear search anyway, deleting at arbitrary points can be done by swapping the last element to the deleted position so no further moving around of elements is required – yielding O(1) for insertion and deletion and O(very small n) for lookup.
If your list is no longer then 256, the best option will be to hold a hash table and add/remove each new element with hash function. this way each add/remove will take you only O(1), and the size of the used memory doesn't need to be large.
I would use a doubly-linked-list. When dealing with tens or hundreds of items, its not terribly slower to search than an array, and it has the advantage of only taking up as much space as it absolutely needs. Adding and removing elements is very simple, and incurs very little additional overhead.
A tree structure is faster for searching, but has more overhead when adding or removing elements. That said, when dealing with tens or hundreds of items, the difference probably isn't significant. If I were you, I'd build an implementation of each and see which one is faster in actual usage.
15 items, BST should be fine if you can keep them sorted, not sure if the overhead will be much better than a linked list or an array if the items are rather small. For a lot of insertions/deletions I recommend a linked list because the only thing you have to do is patch pointers.
What's wrong with a plain old array? You said "list" so presumably order is important, so you can't use a hash set (if you do use a hash set, use probing, not chaining).
You can't use a linked list because it would double your memory requirements. A tree would have the same problem, and it would be much more difficult to implement.
I have a linked list of around 5000 entries ("NOT" inserted simultaneously), and I am traversing the list, looking for a particular entry on occasions (though this is not very often), should I consider Hash Table as a more optimum choice for this case, replacing the linked list (which is doubly-linked & linear) ?? Using C in Linux.
If you have not found the code to be the slow part of the application via a profiler then you shouldn't do anything about it yet.
If it is slow, but the code is tested, works, and is clear, and there are other slower areas that you can work on speeding up do those first.
If it is buggy then you need to fix it anyways, go for the hash table as it will be faster than the list. This assumes that the order that the data is traversed does not matter, if you care about what the insertion order is then stick with the list (you can do things with a hash table and keep the order, but that will make the code much tricker).
Given that you need to search the list only on occasion the odds of this being a significant bottleneck in your code is small.
Another data structure to look at is a "skip list" which basically lets you skip over a large portion of the list. This requires that the list be sorted however, which, depending on what you are doing, may make the code slower overall.
Whether using hash table is more optimum or not depends on the use case, which you have not described in detail. But more importantly, make sure the bottleneck of performance is in this part of the code. If this code is called only once in a while and not in a critical path, no use bothering to change the code.
Have you measured and found a performance hit with the lookup? A hash_map or hash table should be good.
If you need to traverse the list in order (not as a part of searching for elements, but say for displaying them) then a linked list is a good choice. If you're only storing them so that you can look up elements then a hash table will greatly outperform a linked list (for all but the worst possible hash function).
If your application calls for both types of operations, you might consider keeping both, and using whichever one is appropriate for a particular task. The memory overhead would be small, since you'd only need to keep one copy of each element in memory and have the data structures store pointers to these objects.
As with any optimization step that you take, make sure you measure your code to find the real bottleneck before you make any changes.
If you care about performance, you definitely should. If you're iterating through the thing to find a certain element with any regularity, it's going to be worth it to use a hash table. If it's a rare case, though, and the ordinary use of the list is not a search, then there's no reason to worry about it.
If you only traverse the collection I don't see any advantages of using a hashmap.
I advise against hashes in almost all cases.
There are two reasons; firstly, the size of the hash is fixed.
Second and much more importantly; the hashing algorithm. How do you know you've got it right? how will it behave with real data rather than test data?
I suggest a balanced b-tree. Always O(log n), no uncertainty with regard to a hash algorithm and no size limits.