So, suppose I have an array:
int arr[5];
Instead of iterating through the array from 0 to 4, is it possible to do that in random order, and in a way that the iterator wouldn't go through the same position twice?
All the below assumes you want to implement your iteration in O(1) space - not using e.g. an auxiliary array of indices, which you could shuffle. If you can afford O(n) space, the solution is relatively easy, so I assume you can only afford O(1).
To iterate over an array in a random manner, you can make a random number generator, and use its output as an index into the array. You cannot use the standard RNGs this way because they can output the same index twice too soon. However, the theory of RNGs is pretty extensive, and you have at least two types of RNG which have guarantees on their period.
Linear-feedback shift register
Lehmer random number generator
To use these theoretical ideas:
Choose a number N ≤ n (where n is the size of your array), but not much greater than n, such that it's possible to construct a RNG with period N
Call your RNG N times, so it generates a permutation of numbers from 0 to N-1
For each number, if it's smaller than the size of your array, output the element of your array with that index
The techniques for making a RNG with a given period may be too annoying to implement in code. So, if you know the size of your array in advance, you can choose N = n, and create your RNG manually (factoring n or n+1 will be the first step). If you don't know the size of your array, choose some easy-to-use number for N, like some suitable power of 2.
As mentioned in the comments, there are several ways you can do this. The most obvious way would be to just shuffle the range and then iterate over it:
std::shuffle(arr, arr + 5);
for (int a : arr)
// a is a new random element from arr in each iteration
This will modify the range of course, which may not be what you want.
For an option that doesn't modify the range: you can generate a range of indices, shuffle those indices and use those indices to index into the range:
int ind[5];
std::iota(ind, ind + 5, 0);
std::shuffle(ind, ind + 5);
for (int i : ind)
// arr[i] is a new random element from arr in each iteration
You could also implement a custom iterator that iterates over a range in random order without repeats, though this might be overkill for the functionality you're trying to achieve. It's still a good thing to try out, to learn how that works.
Related
I would like to use mt19937 to loop over an array and grab each value from it exactly once, but in a random order. Essentially, is there a way to use mt19937 to generate all numbers within a particular range exactly once (without just ignoring duplicates, but ensuring that it does not produce duplicates altogether(for the sake of efficiency))?
I have considered a shuffle function, however it's only the indices I care about; the values within the array are arbitrary, but their corresponding index is important. I have a matrix of 1's and I need to randomly select an index and turn that 1 to a 0. But I don't want to perform this calculation more than is necessary (exactly as many elements as are in the matrix).
Assuming your array is of size N and you don't want to rearrange it:
Generate a second array, also of size N.
Shuffle the second array using the Fisher-Yates-Knuth shuffle.
Utilize the elements of the first array in the order specified by the second array.
The Fisher-Yates-Knuth shuffle can be implemented as follows:
//To shuffle an array a of n elements (indices 0..n-1):
for i from 0 to n−2 do
j ← random integer such that i ≤ j < n
swap a[i] and a[j]
You could also use std::shuffle:
std::shuffle(a.begin(), a.end(), std::default_random_engine(seed));
So you need to create a list of values, then shuffle them.
Whilst there's a function to shuffle, the algorithm is simple. Start at index 0 and swap with a random value in the range 0 to N-1, then go to index 1 and swap with a random value in the range 1 to N-1, and so on, Don't swap on 0 to N-1 as that doesn't provide a genuinely random permutation.
I currently have a solution but I feel it's not as efficient as it could be to this problem, so I want to see if there is a faster method to this.
I have two arrays (std::vectors for example). Both arrays contain only unique integer values that are sorted but are sparse in value, ie: 1,4,12,13... What I want to ask is there fast way I can find the INDEX to one of the arrays where the values are the same. For example, array1 has values 1,4,12,13 and array2 has values 2,12,14,16. The first matching value index is 1 in array2. The index into the array is what is important as I have other arrays that contain data that will use this index that "matches".
I am not confined to using arrays, maps are possible to. I am only comparing the two arrays once. They will not be reused again after the first matching pass. There can be small to large number of values (300,000+) in either array, but DO NOT always have the same number of values (that would make things much easier)
Worse case is a linear search O(N^2). Using map would get me better O(log N) but I would still have convert an array to into a map of value, index pairs.
What I currently have to not do any container type conversions is this. Loop over the smaller of the two arrays. Compare current element of small array (array1) with the current element of large array (array2). If array1 element value is larger than array2 element value, increment the index for array2 until is it no longer larger than array1 element value (while loop). Then, if array1 element value is smaller than array2 element, go to next loop iteration and begin again. Otherwise they must be equal and I have my index to either arrays of the matching value.
So in this loop, I am at best O(N) if all values have matches and at worse O(2N) if none match. So I am wondering if there is something faster out there? It's hard to know for sure how often the two arrays will match, but I would way I would lean more toward most of the arrays will mostly have matches than not.
I hope I explained the problem well enough and I appreciate any feedback or tips on improving this.
Code example:
std::vector<int> array1 = {4,6,12,34};
std::vector<int> array2 = {1,3,6,34,40};
for(unsigned int i=0, z=0; i < array1.size(); i++)
{
int value1 = array1[i];
while(value1 > array2[z] && z < array2.size())
z++;
if (z >= array2.size())
break; // reached end of array2
if (value1 < array2[z])
continue;
// we have a match, i and z indices have same value
}
Result will be matching indexes for array1 = [1,3] and for array2= [2,3]
I wrote an implementation of this function using an algorithm that performs better with sparse distributions, than the trivial linear merge.
For distributions, that are similar†, it has O(n) complexity but ranges where the distributions are greatly different, it should perform below linear, approaching O(log n) in optimal cases. However, I wasn't able to prove that the worst case isn't better than O(n log n). On the other hand, I haven't been able to find that worst case either.
I templated it so that any type of ranges can be used, such as sub-ranges or raw arrays. Technically it works with non-random access iterators as well, but the complexity is much greater, so it's not recommended. I think it should be possible to modify the algorithm to fall back to linear search in that case, but I haven't bothered.
† By similar distribution, I mean that the pair of arrays have many crossings. By crossing, I mean a point where you would switch from one array to another if you were to merge the two arrays together in sorted order.
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
#include <utility>
// helper structure for the search
template<class Range, class Out>
struct search_data {
// is any there clearer way to get iterator that might be either
// a Range::const_iterator or const T*?
using iterator = decltype(std::cbegin(std::declval<Range&>()));
iterator curr;
const iterator begin, end;
Out out;
};
template<class Range, class Out>
auto init_search_data(const Range& range, Out out) {
return search_data<Range, Out>{
std::begin(range),
std::begin(range),
std::end(range),
out,
};
}
template<class Range, class Out1, class Out2>
void match_indices(const Range& in1, const Range& in2, Out1 out1, Out2 out2) {
auto search_data1 = init_search_data(in1, out1);
auto search_data2 = init_search_data(in2, out2);
// initial order is arbitrary
auto lesser = &search_data1;
auto greater = &search_data2;
// if either range is exhausted, we are finished
while(lesser->curr != lesser->end
&& greater->curr != greater->end) {
// difference of first values in each range
auto delta = *greater->curr - *lesser->curr;
if(!delta) { // matching value was found
// store both results and increment the iterators
*lesser->out++ = std::distance(lesser->begin, lesser->curr++);
*greater->out++ = std::distance(greater->begin, greater->curr++);
continue; // then start a new iteraton
}
if(delta < 0) { // set the order of ranges by their first value
std::swap(lesser, greater);
delta = -delta; // delta is always positive after this
}
// next crossing cannot be farther than the delta
// this assumption has following pre-requisites:
// range is sorted, values are integers, values in the range are unique
auto range_left = std::distance(lesser->curr, lesser->end);
auto upper_limit =
std::min(range_left, static_cast<decltype(range_left)>(delta));
// exponential search for a sub range where the value at upper bound
// is greater than target, and value at lower bound is lesser
auto target = *greater->curr;
auto lower = lesser->curr;
auto upper = std::next(lower, upper_limit);
for(int i = 1; i < upper_limit; i *= 2) {
auto guess = std::next(lower, i);
if(*guess >= target) {
upper = guess;
break;
}
lower = guess;
}
// skip all values in lesser,
// that are less than the least value in greater
lesser->curr = std::lower_bound(lower, upper, target);
}
}
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int main() {
std::vector<int> array1 = {4,6,12,34};
std::vector<int> array2 = {1,3,6,34};
std::vector<std::size_t> indices1;
std::vector<std::size_t> indices2;
match_indices(array1, array2,
std::back_inserter(indices1),
std::back_inserter(indices2));
std::cout << "indices in array1: ";
for(std::vector<int>::size_type i : indices1)
std::cout << i << ' ';
std::cout << "\nindices in array2: ";
for(std::vector<int>::size_type i : indices2)
std::cout << i << ' ';
std::cout << std::endl;
}
Since the arrays are already sorted you can just use something very much like the merge step of mergesort. This just looks at the head element of each array, and discards the lower element (the next element becomes the head). Stop when you find a match (or when either array becomes exhausted, indicating no match).
This is O(n) and the fastest you can do for arbitrary distubtions. With certain clustered distributions a "skip ahead" approach could be used rather than always looking at the next element. This could result in better than O(n) running times for certain distributions. For example, given the arrays 1,2,3,4,5 and 10,11,12,13,14 an algorithm could determine there were no matches to be found in as few as one comparison (5 < 10).
What is the range of the stored numbers?
I mean, you say that the numbers are integers, sorted, and sparse (i.e. non-sequential), and that there may be more than 300,000 of them, but what is their actual range?
The reason that I ask is that, if there is a reasonably small upper limit, u, (say, u=500,000), the fastest and most expedient solution might be to just use the values as indices. Yes, you might be wasting memory, but is 4*u really a lot of memory? This depends on your application and your target platform (i.e. if this is for a memory-constrained embedded system, its less likely to be a good idea than if you have a laptop with 32GiB RAM).
Of course, if the values are more-or-less evenly spread over 0-2^31-1, this crude idea isn't attractive, but maybe there are properties of the input values that you can exploit other simply than the range. You might be able to hand-write a fairly simple hash function.
Another thing worth considering is whether you actually need to be able to retrieve the index quickly or if it helps just be able to tell if the index exists in the other array quickly. Whether or not a value exists at a particular index requires only one bit, so you could have a bitmap of the range of the input values using 32x less memory (i.e. mask off 5 LSBs and use that as a bit position, then shift the remaining 27 bits 5 places right and use that as an array index).
Finally, a hybrid approach might be worth considering, where you decide how much memory you're prepared to use (say you decide 256KiB, which corresponds to 64Ki 4-byte integers) then use that as a lookup-table to into much smaller sub-problems. Say you have 300,000 values whose LSBs are pretty evenly distributed. Then you could use 16 LSBs as indices into a lookup-table of lists that are (on average) only 4 or 5 elements long, which you can then search by other means. A couple of year ago, I worked on some simulation software that had ~200,000,000 cells, each with a cell id; some utility functionality used a binary search to identify cells by id. We were able to speed it up significantly and non-intrusively with this strategy. Not a perfect solution, but a great improvement. (If the LSBs are not evenly distributed, maybe that's a property that you can exploit or maybe you can choose a range of bits that are, or do a bit of hashing.)
I guess the upshot is “consider some kind of hashing”, even the “identity hash” or simple masking/modulo with a little “your solution doesn't have to be perfectly general” on the side and some “your solution doesn't have to be perfectly space efficient” sauce on top.
I need to create a set of random numbers between 0 and 800. The problem is at the moment that I need to do this fast and each number shall be returned only once.
My current approach is:
Create a std::vector containing the numbers from 0 to 800
Pick a number using numberVector[rand() % numberVector.length()]
Delete this number from the vector
I have to do this very often and my current approach is slow. Is there some way to speed things up here?
Create a std::vector containing the numbers from 0 to 800
Shuffle the vector.
This should be useful: c++ - How to shuffle a std::vector? - Stack Overflow
Take the elements of the vector one by one, from the head to the tail. You don't have to delete the element: just store the index of last used element.
std::shuffle (std::random_shuffle) your std::vector
pop_back elements
Delete this number from the vector
You're probably doing too much work for this. Remember, for example, that deleting from the end of the vector is a lot faster than deleting from the front of the vector.
Since you don't care where in the vector your numbers are, you can speed things up by moving the number you want to delete to the end of the vector; e.g.
int take_from_vector(vector<int> &vec, size_t pos)
{
int rv = vec[pos];
swap(vec[pos], vec.back());
vec.pop_back();
return rv;
}
However, if you're generating just a few things, it is probably faster to use rejection sampling: you keep track of which numbers you've generated, then reject any repeats. e.g.
int generate_another_number(set<int> &already_generated, int bound)
{
while (true) {
int rv = rand() % bound;
auto pos = already_generated.insert(rv);
if (pos.second) { return rv; }
}
}
Depending on how many things you're generating, you might want to use unordered_set<int> instead of set. Or maybe even use vector and just iterate over the vector to see if it contains the generated number.
P.S. consider using C++'s random number generation features, rather than the ancient rand() function.
I want to sort an array with huge(millions or even billions) elements, while the values are integers within a small range(1 to 100 or 1 to 1000), in such a case, is std::sort and the parallelized version __gnu_parallel::sort the best choice for me?
actually I want to sort a vecotor of my own class with an integer member representing the processor index.
as there are other member inside the class, so, even if two data have same integer member that is used for comparing, they might not be regarded as same data.
Counting sort would be the right choice if you know that your range is so limited. If the range is [0,m) the most efficient way to do so it have a vector in which the index represent the element and the value the count. For example:
vector<int> to_sort;
vector<int> counts;
for (int i : to_sort) {
if (counts.size() < i) {
counts.resize(i+1, 0);
}
counts[i]++;
}
Note that the count at i is lazily initialized but you can resize once if you know m.
If you are sorting objects by some field and they are all distinct, you can modify the above as:
vector<T> to_sort;
vector<vector<const T*>> count_sorted;
for (const T& t : to_sort) {
const int i = t.sort_field()
if (count_sorted.size() < i) {
count_sorted.resize(i+1, {});
}
count_sorted[i].push_back(&t);
}
Now the main difference is that your space requirements grow substantially because you need to store the vectors of pointers. The space complexity went from O(m) to O(n). Time complexity is the same. Note that the algorithm is stable. The code above assumes that to_sort is in scope during the life cycle of count_sorted. If your Ts implement move semantics you can store the object themselves and move them in. If you need count_sorted to outlive to_sort you will need to do so or make copies.
If you have a range of type [-l, m), the substance does not change much, but your index now represents the value i + l and you need to know l beforehand.
Finally, it should be trivial to simulate an iteration through the sorted array by iterating through the counts array taking into account the value of the count. If you want stl like iterators you might need a custom data structure that encapsulates that behavior.
Note: in the previous version of this answer I mentioned multiset as a way to use a data structure to count sort. This would be efficient in some java implementations (I believe the Guava implementation would be efficient) but not in C++ where the keys in the RB tree are just repeated many times.
You say "in-place", I therefore assume that you don't want to use O(n) extra memory.
First, count the number of objects with each value (as in Gionvanni's and ronaldo's answers). You still need to get the objects into the right locations in-place. I think the following works, but I haven't implemented or tested it:
Create a cumulative sum from your counts, so that you know what index each object needs to go to. For example, if the counts are 1: 3, 2: 5, 3: 7, then the cumulative sums are 1: 0, 2: 3, 3: 8, 4: 15, meaning that the first object with value 1 in the final array will be at index 0, the first object with value 2 will be at index 3, and so on.
The basic idea now is to go through the vector, starting from the beginning. Get the element's processor index, and look up the corresponding cumulative sum. This is where you want it to be. If it's already in that location, move on to the next element of the vector and increment the cumulative sum (so that the next object with that value goes in the next position along). If it's not already in the right location, swap it with the correct location, increment the cumulative sum, and then continue the process for the element you swapped into this position in the vector.
There's a potential problem when you reach the start of a block of elements that have already been moved into place. You can solve that by remembering the original cumulative sums, "noticing" when you reach one, and jump ahead to the current cumulative sum for that value, so that you don't revisit any elements that you've already swapped into place. There might be a cleverer way to deal with this, but I don't know it.
Finally, compare the performance (and correctness!) of your code against std::sort. This has better time complexity than std::sort, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily faster for your actual data.
You definitely want to use counting sort. But not the one you're thinking of. Its main selling point is that its time complexity is O(N+X) where X is the maximum value you allow the sorting of.
Regular old counting sort (as seen on some other answers) can only sort integers, or has to be implemented with a multiset or some other data structure (becoming O(Nlog(N))). But a more general version of counting sort can be used to sort (in place) anything that can provide an integer key, which is perfectly suited to your use case.
The algorithm is somewhat different though, and it's also known as American Flag Sort. Just like regular counting sort, it starts off by calculating the counts.
After that, it builds a prefix sums array of the counts. This is so that we can know how many elements should be placed behind a particular item, thus allowing us to index into the right place in constant time.
since we know the correct final position of the items, we can just swap them into place. And doing just that would work if there weren't any repetitions but, since it's almost certain that there will be repetitions, we have to be more careful.
First: when we put something into its place we have to increment the value in the prefix sum so that the next element with same value doesn't remove the previous element from its place.
Second: either
keep track of how many elements of each value we have already put into place so that we dont keep moving elements of values that have already reached their place, this requires a second copy of the counts array (prior to calculating the prefix sum), as well as a "move count" array.
keep a copy of the prefix sums shifted over by one so that we stop moving elements once the stored position of the latest element
reaches the first position of the next value.
Even though the first approach is somewhat more intuitive, I chose the second method (because it's faster and uses less memory).
template<class It, class KeyOf>
void countsort (It begin, It end, KeyOf key_of) {
constexpr int max_value = 1000;
int final_destination[max_value] = {}; // zero initialized
int destination[max_value] = {}; // zero initialized
// Record counts
for (It it = begin; it != end; ++it)
final_destination[key_of(*it)]++;
// Build prefix sum of counts
for (int i = 1; i < max_value; ++i) {
final_destination[i] += final_destination[i-1];
destination[i] = final_destination[i-1];
}
for (auto it = begin; it != end; ++it) {
auto key = key_of(*it);
// while item is not in the correct position
while ( std::distance(begin, it) != destination[key] &&
// and not all items of this value have reached their final position
final_destination[key] != destination[key] ) {
// swap into the right place
std::iter_swap(it, begin + destination[key]);
// tidy up for next iteration
++destination[key];
key = key_of(*it);
}
}
}
Usage:
vector<Person> records = populateRecords();
countsort(records.begin(), records.end(), [](Person const &){
return Person.id()-1; // map [1, 1000] -> [0, 1000)
});
This can be further generalized to become MSD Radix Sort,
here's a talk by Malte Skarupke about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqs87a_7zxw
Here's a neat visualization of the algorithm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1XkZ5ANO64
The answer given by Giovanni Botta is perfect, and Counting Sort is definitely the way to go. However, I personally prefer not to go resizing the vector progressively, but I'd rather do it this way (assuming your range is [0-1000]):
vector<int> to_sort;
vector<int> counts(1001);
int maxvalue=0;
for (int i : to_sort) {
if(i > maxvalue) maxvalue = i;
counts[i]++;
}
counts.resize(maxvalue+1);
It is essentially the same, but no need to be constantly managing the size of the counts vector. Depending on your memory constraints, you could use one solution or the other.
I have a data structure like this:
struct X {
float value;
int id;
};
a vector of those (size N (think 100000), sorted by value (stays constant during the execution of the program):
std::vector<X> values;
Now, I want to write a function
void subvector(std::vector<X> const& values,
std::vector<int> const& ids,
std::vector<X>& out /*,
helper data here */);
that fills the out parameter with a sorted subset of values, given by the passed ids (size M < N (about 0.8 times N)), fast (memory is not an issue, and this will be done repeatedly, so building lookuptables (the helper data from the function parameters) or something else that is done only once is entirely ok).
My solution so far:
Build lookuptable lut containing id -> offset in values (preparation, so constant runtime)
create std::vector<X> tmp, size N, filled with invalid ids (linear in N)
for each id, copy values[lut[id]] to tmp[lut[id]] (linear in M)
loop over tmp, copying items to out (linear in N)
this is linear in N (as it's bigger than M), but the temporary variable and repeated copying bugs me. Is there a way to do it quicker than this? Note that M will be close to N, so things that are O(M log N) are unfavourable.
Edit: http://ideone.com/xR8Vp is a sample implementation of mentioned algorithm, to make the desired output clear and prove that it's doable in linear time - the question is about the possibility of avoiding the temporary variable or speeding it up in some other way, something that is not linear is not faster :).
An alternative approach you could try is to use a hash table instead of a vector to look up ids in:
void subvector(std::vector<X> const& values,
std::unordered_set<int> const& ids,
std::vector<X>& out) {
out.clear();
out.reserve(ids.size());
for(std::vector<X>::const_iterator i = values.begin(); i != values.end(); ++i) {
if(ids.find(i->id) != ids.end()) {
out.push_back(*i);
}
}
}
This runs in linear time since unordered_set::find is constant expected time (assuming that we have no problems hashing ints). However I suspect it might not be as fast in practice as the approach you described initially using vectors.
Since your vector is sorted, and you want a subset of it sorted the same way, I assume we can just slice out the chunk you want without rearranging it.
Why not just use find_if() twice. Once to find the start of the range you want and once to find the end of the range. This will give you the start and end iterators of the sub vector. Construct a new vector using those iterators. One of the vector constructor overloads takes two iterators.
That or the partition algorithm should work.
If I understood your problem correctly, you actually try to create a linear time sorting algorithm (subject to the input size of numbers M).
That is NOT possible.
Your current approach is to have a sorted list of possible values.
This takes linear time to the number of possible values N (theoretically, given that the map search takes O(1) time).
The best you could do, is to sort the values (you found from the map) with a quick sorting method (O(MlogM) f.e. quicksort, mergesort etc) for small values of M and maybe do that linear search for bigger values of M.
For example, if N is 100000 and M is 100 it is much faster to just use a sorting algorithm.
I hope you can understand what I say. If you still have questions I will try to answer them :)
edit: (comment)
I will further explain what I mean.
Say you know that your numbers will range from 1 to 100.
You have them sorted somewhere (actually they are "naturally" sorted) and you want to get a subset of them in sorted form.
If it would be possible to do it faster than O(N) or O(MlogM), sorting algorithms would just use this method to sort.
F.e. by having the set of numbers {5,10,3,8,9,1,7}, knowing that they are a subset of the sorted set of numbers {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} you still can't sort them faster than O(N) (N = 10) or O(MlogM) (M = 7).