Downloaded 102 times
![Sorting In Linear Time
Counting sort
No comparisons between elements!
But…depends on assumption about the numbers
being sorted
We
assume numbers are in the range 1.. k
The algorithm:
A[1..n], where A[j] {1, 2, 3, …, k}
Output: B[1..n], sorted (notice: not sorting in place)
Also: Array C[1..k] for auxiliary storage
Input:
Sandeep Kumar Poonia
2/19/2012](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/linear-timesortingalgorithms-140217061848-phpapp02/85/Linear-time-sorting-algorithms-15-320.jpg)
![Counting Sort
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CountingSort(A, B, k)
for i=0 to k
C[i]= 0;
for j=1 to n
C[A[j]]= C[A[j]] + 1;
for i=2 to k
C[i] = C[i] + C[i-1];
for j=n downto 1
B[C[A[j]]] = A[j];
C[A[j]] = C[A[j]] - 1;
Sandeep Kumar Poonia
2/19/2012](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/linear-timesortingalgorithms-140217061848-phpapp02/85/Linear-time-sorting-algorithms-16-320.jpg)
![Counting Sort
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CountingSort(A, B, k)
for i=1 to k
Takes time O(k)
C[i]= 0;
for j=1 to n
C[A[j]] += 1;
for i=2 to k
C[i] = C[i] + C[i-1];
Takes time O(n)
for j=n downto 1
B[C[A[j]]] = A[j];
C[A[j]] -= 1;
What will be the running time?
Sandeep Kumar Poonia
2/19/2012](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/linear-timesortingalgorithms-140217061848-phpapp02/85/Linear-time-sorting-algorithms-17-320.jpg)
![Sorting In Linear Time
Counting sort
No comparisons between elements!
But…depends on assumption about the numbers
being sorted
We
assume numbers are in the range 1.. k
The algorithm:
A[1..n], where A[j] {1, 2, 3, …, k}
Output: B[1..n], sorted (notice: not sorting in place)
Also: Array C[1..k] for auxiliary storage
Input:
Sandeep Kumar Poonia
2/19/2012](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/linear-timesortingalgorithms-140217061848-phpapp02/75/Linear-time-sorting-algorithms-15-2048.jpg)
![Counting Sort
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CountingSort(A, B, k)
for i=0 to k
C[i]= 0;
for j=1 to n
C[A[j]]= C[A[j]] + 1;
for i=2 to k
C[i] = C[i] + C[i-1];
for j=n downto 1
B[C[A[j]]] = A[j];
C[A[j]] = C[A[j]] - 1;
Sandeep Kumar Poonia
2/19/2012](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/linear-timesortingalgorithms-140217061848-phpapp02/75/Linear-time-sorting-algorithms-16-2048.jpg)
![Counting Sort
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CountingSort(A, B, k)
for i=1 to k
Takes time O(k)
C[i]= 0;
for j=1 to n
C[A[j]] += 1;
for i=2 to k
C[i] = C[i] + C[i-1];
Takes time O(n)
for j=n downto 1
B[C[A[j]]] = A[j];
C[A[j]] -= 1;
What will be the running time?
Sandeep Kumar Poonia
2/19/2012](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/linear-timesortingalgorithms-140217061848-phpapp02/75/Linear-time-sorting-algorithms-17-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byDr Sandeep Kumar Poonia
Linear time sorting algorithms
This document discusses various sorting algorithms and their time complexities, including linear-time sorting algorithms. It introduces counting sort, which can sort in O(n) time when the range of input values is small. Radix sort is then presented as a generalization of counting sort that can sort integers in linear time by sorting based on individual digit positions. Bucket sort is also discussed as another linear-time sorting algorithm when inputs are uniformly distributed.
More Related Content
Similar to Linear time sorting algorithms
Linear time sorting algorithms
- 1. Algorithms Sandeep Kumar Poonia HeadOf Dept. CS/IT B.E., M.Tech., UGC-NET LM-IAENG, LM-IACSIT,LM-CSTA, LM-AIRCC, LM-SCIEI, AM-UACEE
- 2. Algorithms Linear-Time Sorting Algorithms SandeepKumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 3. Sorting So Far Insertionsort: Easy to code Fast on small inputs (less than ~50 elements) Fast on nearly-sorted inputs O(n2) worst case O(n2) average (equally-likely inputs) case O(n2) reverse-sorted case Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 4. Sorting So Far Mergesort: Divide-and-conquer: Split array in half Recursively sort subarrays Linear-time merge step O(n lg n) worst case Doesn’t sort in place Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 5. Sorting So Far Heapsort: Uses the very useful heap data structure Complete binary tree Heap property: parent key > children’s keys O(n lg n) worst case Sorts in place Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 6. Sorting So Far Quicksort: Divide-and-conquer: Partition array into two subarrays, recursively sort All of first subarray < all of second subarray No merge step needed! O(n lg n) average case Fast in practice O(n2) worst case Naïve implementation: worst case on sorted input Address this with randomized quicksort Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 7. How Fast CanWe Sort? We will provide a lower bound, then beat it How do you suppose we’ll beat it? First, an observation: all of the sorting algorithms so far are comparison sorts The only operation used to gain ordering information about a sequence is the pairwise comparison of two elements Theorem: all comparison sorts are (n lg n) A comparison sort must do O(n) comparisons (why?) What about the gap between O(n) and O(n lg n) Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 8. Decision Trees Decision treesprovide an abstraction of comparison sorts A decision tree represents the comparisons made by a comparison sort. Every thing else ignored What do the leaves represent? How many leaves must there be? Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 9. Decision Trees Sandeep KumarPoonia 2/19/2012
- 10. Decision Trees Decision treescan model comparison sorts. For a given algorithm: One tree for each n Tree paths are all possible execution traces What’s the longest path in a decision tree for insertion sort? For merge sort? What is the asymptotic height of any decision tree for sorting n elements? Answer: (n lg n) Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 11. Lower Bound For ComparisonSorting Theorem: Any decision tree that sorts n elements has height (n lg n) What’s the minimum # of leaves? What’s the maximum # of leaves of a binary tree of height h? Clearly the minimum # of leaves is less than or equal to the maximum # of leaves Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 12. Lower Bound For ComparisonSorting So we have… n! 2h Taking logarithms: lg (n!) h Stirling’s approximation tells us: n n n! e n n Thus: h lg e Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 13. Lower Bound For ComparisonSorting So we have n h lg e n n lg n n lg e n lg n Thus the minimum height of a decision tree is (n lg n) Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 14. Lower Bound For ComparisonSorts Thus the time to comparison sort n elements is (n lg n) Corollary: Heapsort and Mergesort are asymptotically optimal comparison sorts But the name of this lecture is “Sorting in linear time”! How can we do better than (n lg n)? Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 15. Sorting In LinearTime Counting sort No comparisons between elements! But…depends on assumption about the numbers being sorted We assume numbers are in the range 1.. k The algorithm: A[1..n], where A[j] {1, 2, 3, …, k} Output: B[1..n], sorted (notice: not sorting in place) Also: Array C[1..k] for auxiliary storage Input: Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 16. Counting Sort 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CountingSort(A, B,k) for i=0 to k C[i]= 0; for j=1 to n C[A[j]]= C[A[j]] + 1; for i=2 to k C[i] = C[i] + C[i-1]; for j=n downto 1 B[C[A[j]]] = A[j]; C[A[j]] = C[A[j]] - 1; Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 17. Counting Sort 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CountingSort(A, B,k) for i=1 to k Takes time O(k) C[i]= 0; for j=1 to n C[A[j]] += 1; for i=2 to k C[i] = C[i] + C[i-1]; Takes time O(n) for j=n downto 1 B[C[A[j]]] = A[j]; C[A[j]] -= 1; What will be the running time? Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 18. Counting Sort Total time:O(n + k) Usually, k = O(n) Thus counting sort runs in O(n) time But sorting is (n lg n)! No contradiction--this is not a comparison sort (in fact, there are no comparisons at all!) Notice that this algorithm is stable Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 19. Counting Sort Cool! Whydon’t we always use counting sort? Because it depends on range k of elements Could we use counting sort to sort 32 bit integers? Why or why not? Answer: no, k too large (232 = 4,294,967,296) Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 20. Counting Sort How didIBM get rich originally? Answer: punched card readers for census tabulation in early 1900’s. In particular, a card sorter that could sort cards into different bins Each column can be punched in 12 places Decimal digits use 10 places Problem: only one column can be sorted on at a time Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 21. Radix Sort Intuitively, youmight sort on the most significant digit, then the second msd, etc. Problem: lots of intermediate piles of cards to keep track of Key idea: sort the least significant digit first RadixSort(A, d) for i=1 to d StableSort(A) on digit i Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 22. Radix Sort Sandeep KumarPoonia 2/19/2012
- 23. Radix Sort Can weprove it will work? Sketch of an inductive argument (induction on the number of passes): Assume lower-order digits {j: j<i}are sorted Show that sorting next digit i leaves array correctly sorted If two digits at position i are different, ordering numbers by that digit is correct (lower-order digits irrelevant) If they are the same, numbers are already sorted on the lower-order digits. Since we use a stable sort, the numbers stay in the right order Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 24. Radix Sort Sandeep KumarPoonia 2/19/2012
- 25. Radix Sort Sandeep KumarPoonia 2/19/2012
- 26. Radix Sort Example Sandeep KumarPoonia 2/19/2012
- 27. Radix Sort Problem: Sandeep KumarPoonia 2/19/2012
- 28. Radix Sort In general,radix sort based on counting sort is Fast Asymptotically fast (i.e., O(n)) Simple to code A good choice Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 29. Bucket Sort Bucket sort Assumption:input is n reals from [0, 1) Basic idea: Create n linked lists (buckets) to divide interval [0,1) into subintervals of size 1/n Add each input element to appropriate bucket and sort buckets with insertion sort Uniform input distribution O(1) bucket size Therefore the expected total time is O(n) These ideas will return when we study hash tables Sandeep Kumar Poonia 2/19/2012
- 30. Bucket Sort Sandeep KumarPoonia 2/19/2012
- 31. Bucket Sort Sandeep KumarPoonia 2/19/2012
- 32. Bucket Sort Sandeep KumarPoonia 2/19/2012