CS 415, Section 001 | Sonoma State University | Fall, 2022 |
Algorithm Analysis
|
||
Instructor: Henry M. Walker
Lecturer, Sonoma State University |
Although much of this course is well developed, some details can be
expected to evolve as the semester progresses.
Any changes in course details will be announced promptly during class.
Initial Notes:
The quicksort was originally devised by C. A. R. Hoare. For more details, see the Computing Journal, Volume 5 (1962), pages 10-15.
The basic approach involves applying an initial step that partitions an array into two pieces. The algorithm then is applied recursively to each of the two pieces. This approach of dividing processing into pieces and applying recursion to the two pieces turns out to be extremely general and powerful. Such an approach is called a divide and conquer algorithm.
Even given the central approach for the overall algorithm, several variations have been proposed for a central procedure, called partition. In practice, the major differences in these alternatives relate to underlying conditions that are maintained for a main loop. These conditions are called loop invariants.
Credits:
Much of the following discussion is based on the presentation in Henry M. Walker, Pascal: Problem Solving and Structured Program Design, Little, Brown, and Company, 1987, pages 500-506, and is used with permission of the copyright holder.
The alternative loop invariant discussed below is based on Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivset, and Clifford Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, Third Edition The MIT Press, 2009, pages170-185.
Variations of a third loop invariant are discussed in several YouTube videos.
The quicksort is a recursive approach to sorting, and we begin by outlining the principal recursive step. In this step, we make a guess at the value that should end up in the middle of the array. In particular, given the array a[0], ..., a[N-1] of data, arranged at random, then we might guess that the first data item a[0] often should end up in about the middle of the array when the array is finally ordered. (a[0] is easy to locate, and it is as good a guess at the median value as another.) This suggests the following steps:
A specific example is shown below:
Although the quicksort algorithm, developed by Hoare in 1962, follows a basic motivation, called a partition procedure, several approaches to this procedure are sometimes discussed, and some improvements to the basic approach are possible. The following nested listing outlines this reading.
As discussed in the above outline, the motivating idea of a Quicksort gives rise to a partition procedure that involves three steps:
Choose an array element to serve as a reference value. Typically, this element is called the pivot. (Usually, this is the first element of the array, so this step is easy and quick.)
Rearrange elements within an array, so that elements smaller than the pivot are in the first part of the array, and larger elements at the end. Elements equal to the pivot can be anywhere. The resulting array has the form shown in the following schematic:
Swap the pivot with the last of the smaller elements. (After this step, all elements before the pivot have <= values and all elements after have >= values. Thus, the pivot will be in its correct location if/when the overall array is sorted.) This final result of the partition procedure has the form shown in the next schematic:
Since step 1 involves only a decision to identify the pivot (i.e., as the first array element) and step 3 involves only a swap, the overall efficiency of this algorithm depends on rearranging array elements quickly. In most [all?] implementations, the idea is to proceed with a simple loop that examines array elements only once. In all cases, the loop must seek to
Overall, the loop will need to examine successive array elements and determine whether they belong to the left (small) or right (large) grouping. Thus, as processing proceeds, the procedure will have to keep track of three groups: the collection of small elements, the large elements, and the unprocessed elements (that have not been yet been placed in a group).
Several variations for implementing the partition procedure differ in the locations of the small, large, and unprocessed elements, as shown in the following schematic diagram.
Although it is common to use the leftmost array element as the pivot, exactly the same approach could be followed using the rightmost array element, and discussions on some Web sites follow this alternative viewpoint, Effectively, the potential invariants of either approach are the mirror image of each other, and both perspectives can use parallel logic.
With Loop Invariant 1, the idea is to place small elements at the start of the array, just after a[first] and to place large elements at the end of the array. Elements that have yet to be examined are in the middle. As processing proceeds, the middle section gets successively smaller, until all elements have been put into the correct section.
As indicated in the following schematic,
variables first
and last
identify the
indices of the array segment being processed, and
variables left
and right
mark the edges of
the known small and large collections.
Note:
left
represents the element just after the known
collection of small items, and and right
represents the element just before the known large elements.
Thus, a[left-1] <= pivot
(unless no small
items have yet be identified), and a[left]
is
either unprocessed or >= pivot (if no unprocessed elements
remain). Similar statements apply to a[right]
and a[right+1]
.
Code implementing Loop Invariant 1 largely follows one of two approaches.
This traditional approach works from both ends of the array segment toward the middle, comparing data elements to the first element and rearranging the array as necessary. This idea is encapsulated in the following diagram, which is repeated from above.
To implement this approach, we move left and right toward the middle — maintaining the loop invariant with each step.. The details follow:
These steps are illustrated in the following diagram:
The following code implements this basic step:
int left=first+1;
int right=last;
int temp;
while (right >= left) {
// search left to find small array item
while ((right >= left) && (a[first] <= a[right]))
right--;
// search right to find large array item
while ((right >= left) && (a[first] >= a[left]))
left++;
// swap large left item and small right item, if needed
if (right > left) {
temp = a[left]; // swap a[left] and a[right]
a[left] = a[right];
a[right] = temp;
}
}
// put a[first] in its place
temp = a[first]; // swap the pivot, a[first], and a[right]
a[first] = a[right];
a[right] = temp;
Efficiency Notes:
Several published sources of this algorithm use a
separate swap
procedure to
interchange a[left]
and a[right]
and to
interchange a[first]
and a[right]
.
Although this coding is correct and may look clean, the actual
effect adds a separate procedure call for every swap. In practice,
the time for each call accumulates and can slow the runtime for the
algorithm noticeably. Writing out the lines for the swap, rather
than calling a procedure, can improve performance.
This implementation swaps elements only when both a small and large element are known to be out of place. No additional data movements are utilized, enhancing the efficiency of this approach.
In this approach, seen in a number of YouTube videos, processing proceeds downward from the top end of the array toward the pivot. The details follow:
Compare a[right] with the pivot.
Altogether, the collection of large elements is expanded whenever a large element is found, and the collection of smal elements is expanded whenever a small element is found.
Although the swap process can be written out within the partition procedure, this approach sometimes (often?) is written with a call to a swap function. This produces the following code:
int pivot = a[first]; int left; int right = last; for (left = first+1; left <= right;) { if (a[left] < pivot) { left++; } else { swap (&a[left], &a[right]); right--; } } swap (&a[first], &a[right]);
Efficiency Notes:
Since processing examines only one end of the unprocessed array elements, swaps occur every time a small element is identified at the far unprocessed end. However, since the other end of the unprocessed segment is not examined, the swap may exchange one small element for another. The array segment for small elements is expanded, but the next iteration may require another swap. Altogether, many unnecessary swaps may be made, decreasing the efficiency of this approach.
As noted above, use of a swap
function may yield a
simple-looking procedure, but can add considerable overhead with many
potential procedure calls. A typical implementation follows:
// swap procedure void swap (int * a, int * b) { int temp = * a; * a = * b; *b = temp; }
In this approach, the idea is to maintain small elements and then large elements toward the start of the array. The right of the array contains elements that are yet to be examined. As processing proceeds, the right section shrinks until all items are in their appropriate section.
During processing, we compare successive items in the array to a[first].
Examining this picture in more detail, at the start, there are no examined items, so there are no items that we know are <= a[first] and also no items that we know are > a[first], as shown in the following diagram:
This picture suggests the following initialization:
left = first + 1; right = first + 1;
Once processing has begun, we examine the unprocessed element a[right].
Processing continues until all items are processed, as shown in the following diagram:
Based on this outline, the entire code for placing a[first] in its correct position is:
// progress through array, // moving small elements to a[first+1] .. a[left-1] // and moving large elements to a[left] .. a[right-1] while (right <= last) { if (a[first] < a[right]) right++; else { // swap a[left] and a[right] temp = a[right]; a[right] = a[left]; a[left] = temp; left++; right++; } } // put a[first] in its place temp = a[first]; a[first] = a[left-1]; a[left-1] = temp;
Efficiency Notes:
As small elements are found, they are added to expand the collection on the left, by swapping them with an element already found to be large. Thus, swapping is required for every small element; large items therefore may move several times as new small ones are found.
As discussed previously, replacing the three lines for
swapping elements by a single call to a swap
procedure can make the code look simpler, but such an approach
adds the overhead of more procedure calls.
In this approach, the segment of unprocessed elements is located immediately after the pivot, with the segments for small and then large elements following.
Effectively, processing for this invariant can be viewed as the
mirror image of that for Loop Invariant 2. In this case, processing
begins at the right end of the array (with
element a[last]
) and proceeds toward the beginning of
the array. In this processing,
With the similarities between the processing for Loop Invariants 2 and 3, further details and the code for Loop Invariant 3 are left to the reader.
Regardless of the loop invariant used for a partition function, a pivot is identified and other array elements are moved as needed, so that the pivot can be placed after all amaller (or equal) array elements and after all larger (or equal) elements. This positioning of elements is shown in the following schematic, repeated from earlier in this reading:
As part of processing, the new location of the pivot is known and thus could be returned by a partition function.
Based on this partition function, sorting can proceed by applying the partition procedure to the entire array and then recursively to the first and last parts of the array. The base case of the recursion arises if there are no further elements in an array segment to sort.
This gives rise the the following code, called a quicksort.
int partition (int a[ ], int size, int left, int right) { int pivot = a[left]; int l_spot = left+1; int r_spot = right; int temp; while (l_spot <= r_spot) { while( (l_spot <= r_spot) && (a[r_spot] >= pivot)) r_spot--; while ((l_spot <= r_spot) && (a[l_spot] <= pivot)) l_spot++; // if misplaced small and large values found, swap them if (l_spot < r_spot) { temp = a[l_spot]; a[l_spot] = a[r_spot]; a[r_spot] = temp; l_spot++; r_spot--; } } // swap a[left] with biggest small value temp = a[left]; a[left] = a[r_spot]; a[r_spot] = temp; return r_spot; } void quicksorthelper (int a [ ], int size, int left, int right) { if (left > right) return; int mid = partition (a, size, left, right); quicksorthelper (a, size, left, mid-1); quicksorthelper (a, size, mid+1, right); } void quicksort (int a [ ], int n) { quicksorthelper (a, n, 0, n-1); }
As shown in this implementation, the full code for the quicksort involves three procedures:
The quicksort
procedure supports a user's
view of sorting; the user wants to sort an array of a given length
and does not care about the implementation details.
quicksortHelper
: A programmer needs to apply
the partition
function recursively to various parts of
the array. Thus, from a programmer's
perspective, partition
must know the indices of the
start and end of the array segment to be processed. To accomplish
this, the programmer needs a helper function,
called quicksortHelper
, with the needed
parameters.
partition
: Behind the scenes moving elements within
the array is handled by partition
, as discussed
earlier.
The quicksort is called a divide-and-conquer algorithm, because the first step normally divides the array into two pieces and the approach is applied recursively to each piece.
Suppose this code is applied an array containing n randomly ordered data. For the most part, we might expect that the quicksort's divide-and-conquer strategy will divide the array into two pieces, each of size n/2, after the first main step. Applying the algorithm to each half, in turn, will divide the array further -- roughly 4 pieces, each of size n/4. Continuing a third time, we would expect to get about 8 pieces, each of size n/8.
Applying this process i times, would would expect to get about 2i pieces, each of size n/2i.
This process continues until each array piece just has 1 element in it, so 1 = n/2i or 2i = n or i = log2 n. Thus, the total number of main steps for this algorithms should be about log2 n. For each main step, we must examine the various array elements to move the relevant first items of each array segment into their correct places, and this requires us to examine roughly n items.
Altogether, for random data, this suggests that the quicksort requires about log2 n main steps with n operations per main step. Combining these results, quicksort on random data has O(n log2 n).
A basic quicksort algorithm typically chooses the first or last element in an array segment as the point of reference for subsequent comparisons. (This array element is often called the pivot.) This choice works well when the array contains random data, and the work for this algorithm has O(n log n) with random data.
However, when the data in the array initially are in ascending order or descending order, the analysis of efficiency breaks down, and the quicksort has O(n2). (The analysis is much the same as insertion sort for data in descending order.)
To resolve this difficulty, it is common to select an element in the array segment at random to be the pivot. The first part of the quicksort algorithm then follows the following outline:
private static void quicksortKernet (int[] a, int first, int last) { pick an array element a[first], ..., a[last] at random swap the selected array element with a[first] continue with the quicksort algorithm as described earlier ... }
With this adjustment, quicksort typically performs equally well (O(n log n)) for all types of data.
For the most part, the divide-and-conquer approach of quicksort can
be very efficient. Large segments of an array are repeatedly
divided in half. This allows the algorithm to utilize roughly
O(log2 n) levels of processing, and the
quicksort (usually) runs in time O(n log2n). However,
near the bottom of the recursion, calls to partition
can be made to sort array segments with only a few data elements.
In such circumstances, the overhead of calling a function may
dominate any gain from array processing.
To address such matters, a hybrid approach can be considered. The idea is:
Since large array segments are divided in half during processing, this approach retains the speed of a quicksort, but avoids numerous function calls on small array segments. In practice, some experimentation may be needed to determine when an insertion sort should be called.
created December, 2021 revised December-January 2021 reorganized and expanded August 6-7 2022 |
|
For more information, please contact Henry M. Walker at walker@cs.grinnell.edu. |