I have two Questions for which I cannot find answers by googling, but I find these questions very important for preparation.. Kindly explain only the logic, I will be able to code.
In Search of Efficient Logic..... in terms of Memory and Time.
WAP to add two long positive integers. What Data structure / data type we can use to store the numbers and result.
What is the best way to search an element from an array in shortest time. Size of the array could be large enough, and any elements could be stored in the array(i.e. no range).
Thanks.
A simple array is fine for storing long numbers, then the logic for addition follows naturally.
3 byte arrays would work well, two for the numbers to be added and one for the result.
The fastest way to search an element in an array would be some sort of Binary Search, so long as the array is sorted
Since it`s mentioned the numbers are large enough a linked list where each node is based on the indices of the digits within a number. A traversal through a single list can help us with the solution.
If it`s sorted then Binary search would be apt , but if not Hash table would be the best pick as it takes constant time.
Related
Looking for an elegant way (or a construct with which I am unfamiliar) that allows me to do the equivalent of 'reverse referencing' an array. That is, say I have an integer array
handle[number] = nameNumber
Sometimes I know the number and need the nameNumber, but sometimes I only know the nameNumber and need the matching [number] in the array.
The integer nameNumber values are each unique, that is, no two nameNumbers that are the same, so every [number] and nameNumber pair are also unique.
Is there a good way to 'reverse reference' an array value (or some other construct) without having to sweep the entire array looking for the matching value, (or having to update and keep track of two different arrays with reverse value sets)?
If the array is sorted and you know the length of it, you could binary search for the element in the array. This would be an O(n log(n)) search instead of you doing O(n) search through the array. Divide the array in half and check if the element at the center is greater or less than what you're looking for, grab the half of the array your element is in, and divide in half again. Each decision you make will eliminate half of the elements in the array. Keep this process going and you'll eventually land on the element you're looking for.
I don't know whether it's acceptable for you to use C++ and boost libraries. If yes you can use boost::bimap<X, Y>.
Boost.Bimap is a bidirectional maps library for C++. With Boost.Bimap you can create associative containers in which both types can be used as key. A bimap can be thought of as a combination of a std::map and a std::map.
I need to optimize my algorithm for counting larger/smaller/equal numbers in array(unsorted), than a given number.
I have to do this a lot of times and given array also can have thousands of elements.
Array doesn't change, number is changing
Example:
array: 1,2,3,4,5
n = 3
Number of <: 2
Number of >: 2
Number of ==:1
First thought:
Iterate through the array and check if element is > or < or == than n.
O(n*k)
Possible optimization:
O((n+k) * logn)
Firstly sort the array (im using c qsort), then use binary search to find equal number, and then somehow count smaller and larger values. But how to do that?
If elements exists (bsearch returns pointer to the element) I also need to check if array contain possible duplicates of this elements (so I need to check before and after this elements while they are equal to found element), and then use some pointer operations to count larger and smaller values.
How to get number of values larger/smaller having a pointer to equal element?
But what to do if I don't find the value (bsearch returns null)?
If the array is unsorted, and the numbers in it have no other useful properties, there is no way to beat an O(n) approach of walking the array once, and counting items in the three buckets.
Sorting the array followed by a binary search would be no better than O(n), assuming that you employ a sort algorithm that is linear in time (e.g. a radix sort). For comparison-based sorts, such as quicksort, the timing would increase to O(n*log2n).
On the other hand, sorting would help if you need to run multiple queries against the same set of numbers. The timing for k queries against n numbers would go from O(n*k) for k linear searches to O(n+k*log2n) assuming a linear-time sort, or O((n+k)*log2n) with comparison-based sort. Given a sufficiently large k, the average query time would go down.
Since the array is (apparently?) not changing, presort it. This allows a binary search (Log(n))
a.) implement your own version of bsearch (it will be less code anyhow)
you can do it inline using indices vs. pointers
you won't need function pointers to a specialized function
b.) Since you say that you want to count the number of matches, you imply that the array can contain multiple entries with the same value (otherwise you would have used a boolean has_n).
This means you'll need to do a linear search for the beginning and end of the array of "n"s.
From which you can calculate the number less than n and greater than n.
It appears that you have some unwritten algorithm for choosing these (for n=3 you look for count of values greater and less than 2 and equal to 1, so there is no way to give specific code)
c.) For further optimization (at the expense of memory) you can sort the data into a binary search tree of structs that holds not just the value, but also the count and the number of values before and after each value. It may not use more memory at all if you have a lot of repeat values, but it is hard to tell without the dataset.
That's as much as I can help without code that describes your hidden algorithms and data or at least a sufficient description (aside from recommending a course or courses in data structures and algorithms).
I have searched stackoverflow and google and cant find exactly what im looking for which is this:
I have a set of 4 byte unsigned integers keys, up to a million or so, that I need to use as an index into a table. The easiest would be to simply use the keys as an array index but I dont want to have a 4gb array when Im only going to use a couple of million entries! The table entries and keys are sequential so I need a hash function that preserves order.
e.g.
keys = {56, 69, 3493, 49956, 345678, 345679,....etc}
I want to translate the keys into {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,....etc}
The keys could potentially be any integer but there wont be more than 2 million in total. The number will vary as keys (and corresponding array entries) will be deleted but new keys will always be higher numbered than the previous highest numbered key.
In the above example, if key 69 was deleted, then the hash integer returned on hashing 3493 should be 1 (rather than 2) as it then becomes the 2nd lowest number.
I hope I'm explaining this right. Is the above possible with any fast efficient hashing solution? I need the translation to take in the low 100s of nS though deletion I expect to take longer. I looked at CMPH but couldn't find any usage examples that didn't involved getting the data from a file. It needs to run under linux and compiled with gcc using pure C.
Actually, I don't know if I understand what exactly you want to do.
It seems you are trying to obtain the index number in the "array" (or "list") of sequentialy ordered integers that you have stored somewhere.
If you have stored these integer values in an array, then the algorithm that returns the index integer in optimal time is Binary Search.
Binary Search Algorithm
Since your list is known to be in order, then binary search works in O(log(N)) time, which is very fast.
If you delete an element in the list of "keys", the Binary Search Algorithm works anyway, without extra effort or space (however, the operation of removing one element in the list enforces to you, naturally, to move all the elements being at the right of the deleted element).
You only have to provide three data to the Ninary Search Algorithm: the array, the size of the array, and the desired key, of course.
There is a full Python implementation here. See also the materials available here. If you only need to decode the dictionary, the simplest way to go is to modify the Python code to make it spit out a C file defining the necessary array, and reimplement only the lookup function.
It could be solved by using two dynamic allocated arrays: One for the "keys" and one for the data for the keys.
To get the data for a specific key, you first find in in the key-array, and its index in the key-array is the index into the data array.
When you remove a key-data pair, or want to insert a new item, you reallocate the arrays, and copy over the keys/data to the correct places.
I don't claim this to be the best or most effective solution, but it is one solution to your problem anyway.
You don't need an order preserving minimal perfect hash, because any old hash would do. You don't want to use a 4GB array, but with 2 MB of items, you wouldn't mind using 3 MB of lookup entries.
A standard implementation of a hash map will do the job. It will allow you to delete and add entries and assign any value to entries as you add them.
This leaves you with the question "What hash function might I use on integers?" The usual answer is to take the remainder when dividing by a prime. The prime is chosen to be a bit larger than your expected data. For example, if you expect 2M of items, then choose a prime around 3M.
I have n arrays of data, each of these arrays is sorted by the same criteria.
The number of arrays will, in almost all cases, not exceed 10, so it is a relatively small number. In each array, however, can be a large number of objects, that should be treated as infinite for the algorithm I am looking for.
I now want to treat these arrays as if they are one array. However, I do need a way, to retrieve objects in a given range as fast as possible and without touching all objects before the range and/or all objects after the range. Therefore it is not an option to iterate over all objects and store them in one single array. Fetches with low start values are also more likely than fetches with a high start value. So e.g. fetching objects [20,40) is much more likely than fetching objects [1000,1020), but it could happen.
The range itself will be pretty small, around 20 objects, or can be increased, if relevant for the performance, as long as this does not hit the limits of memory. So I would guess a couple of hundred objects would be fine as well.
Example:
3 arrays, each containing a couple of thousand entires. I now want to get the overall objects in the range [60, 80) without touching either the upper 60 objects in each set nor all the objets that are after object 80 in the array.
I am thinking about some sort of combined, modified binary search. My current idea is something like the following (note, that this is not fully thought through yet, it is just an idea):
get object 60 of each array - the beginning of the range can not be after that, as every single array would already meet the requirements
use these objects as the maximum value for the binary search in every array
from one of the arrays, get the centered object (e.g. 30)
with a binary search in all the other arrays, try to find the object in each array, that would be before, but as close as possible to the picked object.
we now have 3 objects, e.g. object 15, 10 and 20. The sum of these objects would be 45. So there are 42 objects in front, which is more than the beginning of the range we are looking for (30). We continue our binary search in the remaining left half of one of the arrays
if we instead get a value where the sum is smaller than the beginning of the range we are looking for, we continue our search on the right.
at some point we will hit object 30. From there on, we can simply add the objects from each array, one by one, with an insertion sort until we hit the range length.
My questions are:
Is there any name for this kind of algorithm I described here?
Are there other algorithms or ideas for this problem, that might be better suited for this issue?
Thans in advance for any idea or help!
People usually call this problem something like "selection in the union of multiple sorted arrays". One of the questions in the sidebar is about the special case of two sorted arrays, and this question is about the general case. Several comparison-based approaches appear in the combined answers; they more or less have to determine where the lower endpoint in each individual array is. Your binary search answer is one of the better approaches; there's an asymptotically faster algorithm due to Frederickson and Johnson, but it's complicated and not obviously an improvement for small ranks.
For this problem I have a sorted Array of doubles. I need to be able to quickly and efficiently find index of the value that is closest to, but not over, n. Efficiency is key, the assignment states is can be done in O(log n) so I assume it can be done with some sort of modified binary search.
I know this has been asked before but all answers I found either assumed an unsorted array or simply looped through the entire array comparing differences.
Any guidance is appreciated. Thank you.
Yes, you can do it with a modified binary search; just look for the number as usual and;
If you find it, it's the correct number (close, but not over)
If you don't find it, if the last number you check is under, that's your number (you've already looked at the number above once and found it to be too high)
If you find it and the last number you check is over, I think you get how to find the highest one under.
Just remember that there are some error conditions to consider too and you'll do fine :)