During mock interview I come up with this question. Interviewer first ask this question without any space limitations. Then he continued with space-limited version. To be on the same page. In the question a string and container class consist of delimiters are given. This is up to you to decide suitable container class and the language of response. I think sample input and output would be enough to understand what really question is.
Input:
"Reverse#Strings Without%Changing-Delimiters"
Output:
"Delimiters#Changing Without%Strings-Reverse"
Note That: Position of "#", "%"," ","-" is not changed
I came up with the solution below:
string ChangeOrderWithoutSpecial(string s, unordered_set<char> delimiter)
{
stack<string> words; // since last words outs first
queue<char> limiter; // since first delimiter outs first
string response =""; //return value
int index=-1; // index of last delimiter visited
int len=s.length();
for (int i =0 ; i <len;i++)
{
if(delimiter.find(s[i]) != delimiter.end()) // i-th char is a delimiter character
{
string temp=s.substr(index+1,i-index-1);
words.push(temp);
char t =s.at(i);
limiter.push(t);
index=i;
}
// i realized that part after interview under assumption starting with word and no double delimiters ie, each word followed by one delimiter
if(index!=s.length()-1)
{
string temp=s.substr(index+1,s.length()-index-1);//until the end;
cout<<temp<<endl;
words.push(temp);
}
while(!limiter.empty())
{
response+=words.top()+limiter.front();
words.pop();
limiter.pop();
}
response+=words.top();
return response;
}
However I couldnt find a o(1) space solution ? Anyone know how ? I also could not figure out if there are multiple delimiters , that also be appricated. Thank you anyone spend time even reading.
Find the first word and the last word. Rotate the string by length(last_word)-length(first_word): this would put the middle part in the correct position. In the example, that'll produce
ersReverse#Strings Without%Changing-Delimit
Then rotate the first and last part of the string, skipping the middle, by length(first_word):
Delimiters#Strings Without%Changing-Reverse
Repeat this algorithm for the substring between the two outermost delimiters.
"Rotate by m" operation can be performed in O(1) space and O(n) time, where n is the length of the sequence being rotated.
Instead of rotating the string, it can be also solved by successive reversing the string.
Reverse the whole string. This is O(n) operation. In your case the string becomes sretimileD-gnignahC%tuohtiW sgnirtS#esreveR.
Find all words and reverse each of them. This is O(n) operation. String is now equal to Delimiters-Changing%Without Strings#Reverse.
Reverse delimiters. This is O(n) operation. You'll get wanted result: Delimiters#Changing Without%Strings-Reverse.
Each of these operations can be done in place, so the total memory complexity is O(1) and time complexity is O(n).
It is worth noting that with this approach each character will be visited 4 times (first reverse, finding words, reverse word, reverse delimiter), so (in general case) it should be faster than Igor Tandetnik's answer where characters in the middle of the string are visited many times. However, in special case where each word has the same length, Igor's solution will be faster because the first rotate operation won't exists.
Edit:
Reverse delimiters can be done in O(n) without extra memory in the similar way as the standard reverse. Just iterate through delimiters instead of whole set of characters:
Iterate forward until you reach delimiter;
Reverse iterate until you reach delimiter from the back;
Swap the current delimiters;
Continue procedure until your iterators meet.
Here is procedure in C++ which will do this job
void reverseDelimiters(string& s, unordered_set<char>& delimiters)
{
auto i = s.begin(); auto j = s.end() - 1; auto dend = delimiters.end();
while (i < j) {
while (i < j && delimiters.find(*i) == dend) i++;
while (i < j && delimiters.find(*j) == dend) j--;
if (i < j) swap(*i, *j), i++, j--;
}
}
I'm looking at some online algorithm solutions for coding interviews, and I don't understand why this algorithm is claimed to be O(n^3).
Caveat: I understand that big-Oh notation is abused in industry, and when I refer to O(n), I'm using that notation to mean the upper bound of an algorithms runtime as is common outside of academia in most places.
Finding the longest palindromic substring. A simple solution might be:
bool isPalindrome(std::string s) {
if (s.length() <= 1) {
return true;
}
if (s[0] == s[s.length() - 1]) {
return isPalindrome(s.substr(1, s.length() - 2));
} else {
return false;
}
}
std::string longestPalindrome(std::string s) {
std::string max_pal = "";
for (size_t i = 0; i < s.length(); ++i) {
for (size_t len = 1; len <= s.length() - i; ++len) {
std::string sub = s.substr(i,len);
if (isPalindrome(sub)) {
if (max_pal.size() < sub.size()) max_pal = sub;
}
}
}
return max_pal;
}
Isn't this algorithm O(n^2)? Very simply, it takes O(n^2) time to generate all substrings, and O(n) time to determine if it's a palindrome. Where n is the number of characters in the initial string.
Isn't this algorithm O(n^2)? Very simply, it takes O(n^2) time to
generate all substrings, and O(n) time to determine if it's a
palindrome.
What you are describing is exactly O(n^3), because for each substring, you are doing an operation which costs O(n), so total number of operations is O(n^2 * C*n), which is O(n^3)
However, the code described is actually O(n^4), isPalindrome() is O(n^2):
You are creating O(n) substrings, of sizes: 1 + 3 + 5 + ... + n-2, which is O(n^2) total time.
Doing this O(n^2) times in longestPalindrome() totals to O(n^4).
(This assumes O(n) substr() complexity. It's not defined - but it's usually the case)
You are almost right,
it takes O(n^2) and O(n) operations to generate the strings and check them.
Thus, you need O(n^2) (amount of strings) times O(n) checks.
Since n^2 * n = n^3, the total run time is in O(n^3).
O(n^2) (substring turns out to be O(n) itself) is executed inside double loop (O(n^2)). That gives us O(n^4).
Actually this'd be even O(N^4), because of the barbarity of the implementation.
isPalindrome is implemented in such a way, that for every recursive invocation it allocates a new string, which is essentially the source string with first and last chars removed. So every such a call is already O(n).
Input: A positive integer K and a big text. The text can actually be viewed as word sequence. So we don't have to worry about how to break down it into word sequence.
Output: The most frequent K words in the text.
My thinking is like this.
use a Hash table to record all words' frequency while traverse the whole word sequence. In this phase, the key is "word" and the value is "word-frequency". This takes O(n) time.
sort the (word, word-frequency) pair; and the key is "word-frequency". This takes O(n*lg(n)) time with normal sorting algorithm.
After sorting, we just take the first K words. This takes O(K) time.
To summarize, the total time is O(n+nlg(n)+K)， Since K is surely smaller than N, so it is actually O(nlg(n)).
We can improve this. Actually, we just want top K words. Other words' frequency is not concern for us. So, we can use "partial Heap sorting". For step 2) and 3), we don't just do sorting. Instead, we change it to be
2') build a heap of (word, word-frequency) pair with "word-frequency" as key. It takes O(n) time to build a heap;
3') extract top K words from the heap. Each extraction is O(lg(n)). So, total time is O(k*lg(n)).
To summarize, this solution cost time O(n+k*lg(n)).
This is just my thought. I haven't find out way to improve step 1).
I Hope some Information Retrieval experts can shed more light on this question.
This can be done in O(n) time
Solution 1:
Steps:
Count words and hash it, which will end up in the structure like this
var hash = {
"I" : 13,
"like" : 3,
"meow" : 3,
"geek" : 3,
"burger" : 2,
"cat" : 1,
"foo" : 100,
...
...
Traverse through the hash and find the most frequently used word (in this case "foo" 100), then create the array of that size
Then we can traverse the hash again and use the number of occurrences of words as array index, if there is nothing in the index, create an array else append it in the array. Then we end up with an array like:
0 1 2 3 100
[[ ],[cat],[burger],[like, meow, geek],[]...[foo]]
Then just traverse the array from the end, and collect the k words.
Solution 2:
Steps:
Same as above
Use min heap and keep the size of min heap to k, and for each word in the hash we compare the occurrences of words with the min, 1) if it's greater than the min value, remove the min (if the size of the min heap is equal to k) and insert the number in the min heap. 2) rest simple conditions.
After traversing through the array, we just convert the min heap to array and return the array.
You're not going to get generally better runtime than the solution you've described. You have to do at least O(n) work to evaluate all the words, and then O(k) extra work to find the top k terms.
If your problem set is really big, you can use a distributed solution such as map/reduce. Have n map workers count frequencies on 1/nth of the text each, and for each word, send it to one of m reducer workers calculated based on the hash of the word. The reducers then sum the counts. Merge sort over the reducers' outputs will give you the most popular words in order of popularity.
A small variation on your solution yields an O(n) algorithm if we don't care about ranking the top K, and a O(n+k*lg(k)) solution if we do. I believe both of these bounds are optimal within a constant factor.
The optimization here comes again after we run through the list, inserting into the hash table. We can use the median of medians algorithm to select the Kth largest element in the list. This algorithm is provably O(n).
After selecting the Kth smallest element, we partition the list around that element just as in quicksort. This is obviously also O(n). Anything on the "left" side of the pivot is in our group of K elements, so we're done (we can simply throw away everything else as we go along).
So this strategy is:
Go through each word and insert it into a hash table: O(n)
Select the Kth smallest element: O(n)
Partition around that element: O(n)
If you want to rank the K elements, simply sort them with any efficient comparison sort in O(k * lg(k)) time, yielding a total run time of O(n+k * lg(k)).
The O(n) time bound is optimal within a constant factor because we must examine each word at least once.
The O(n + k * lg(k)) time bound is also optimal because there is no comparison-based way to sort k elements in less than k * lg(k) time.
If your "big word list" is big enough, you can simply sample and get estimates. Otherwise, I like hash aggregation.
Edit:
By sample I mean choose some subset of pages and calculate the most frequent word in those pages. Provided you select the pages in a reasonable way and select a statistically significant sample, your estimates of the most frequent words should be reasonable.
This approach is really only reasonable if you have so much data that processing it all is just kind of silly. If you only have a few megs, you should be able to tear through the data and calculate an exact answer without breaking a sweat rather than bothering to calculate an estimate.
You can cut down the time further by partitioning using the first letter of words, then partitioning the largest multi-word set using the next character until you have k single-word sets. You would use a sortof 256-way tree with lists of partial/complete words at the leafs. You would need to be very careful to not cause string copies everywhere.
This algorithm is O(m), where m is the number of characters. It avoids that dependence on k, which is very nice for large k [by the way your posted running time is wrong, it should be O(n*lg(k)), and I'm not sure what that is in terms of m].
If you run both algorithms side by side you will get what I'm pretty sure is an asymptotically optimal O(min(m, n*lg(k))) algorithm, but mine should be faster on average because it doesn't involve hashing or sorting.
You have a bug in your description: Counting takes O(n) time, but sorting takes O(m*lg(m)), where m is the number of unique words. This is usually much smaller than the total number of words, so probably should just optimize how the hash is built.
Your problem is same as this-
http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/find-the-k-most-frequent-words-from-a-file/
Use Trie and min heap to efficieinty solve it.
If what you're after is the list of k most frequent words in your text for any practical k and for any natural langage, then the complexity of your algorithm is not relevant.
Just sample, say, a few million words from your text, process that with any algorithm in a matter of seconds, and the most frequent counts will be very accurate.
As a side note, the complexity of the dummy algorithm (1. count all 2. sort the counts 3. take the best) is O(n+m*log(m)), where m is the number of different words in your text. log(m) is much smaller than (n/m), so it remains O(n).
Practically, the long step is counting.
Utilize memory efficient data structure to store the words
Use MaxHeap, to find the top K frequent words.
Here is the code
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Comparator;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.PriorityQueue;
import com.nadeem.app.dsa.adt.Trie;
import com.nadeem.app.dsa.adt.Trie.TrieEntry;
import com.nadeem.app.dsa.adt.impl.TrieImpl;
public class TopKFrequentItems {
private int maxSize;
private Trie trie = new TrieImpl();
private PriorityQueue<TrieEntry> maxHeap;
public TopKFrequentItems(int k) {
this.maxSize = k;
this.maxHeap = new PriorityQueue<TrieEntry>(k, maxHeapComparator());
}
private Comparator<TrieEntry> maxHeapComparator() {
return new Comparator<TrieEntry>() {
#Override
public int compare(TrieEntry o1, TrieEntry o2) {
return o1.frequency - o2.frequency;
}
};
}
public void add(String word) {
this.trie.insert(word);
}
public List<TopK> getItems() {
for (TrieEntry trieEntry : this.trie.getAll()) {
if (this.maxHeap.size() < this.maxSize) {
this.maxHeap.add(trieEntry);
} else if (this.maxHeap.peek().frequency < trieEntry.frequency) {
this.maxHeap.remove();
this.maxHeap.add(trieEntry);
}
}
List<TopK> result = new ArrayList<TopK>();
for (TrieEntry entry : this.maxHeap) {
result.add(new TopK(entry));
}
return result;
}
public static class TopK {
public String item;
public int frequency;
public TopK(String item, int frequency) {
this.item = item;
this.frequency = frequency;
}
public TopK(TrieEntry entry) {
this(entry.word, entry.frequency);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return String.format("TopK [item=%s, frequency=%s]", item, frequency);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + frequency;
result = prime * result + ((item == null) ? 0 : item.hashCode());
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (obj == null)
return false;
if (getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
TopK other = (TopK) obj;
if (frequency != other.frequency)
return false;
if (item == null) {
if (other.item != null)
return false;
} else if (!item.equals(other.item))
return false;
return true;
}
}
}
Here is the unit tests
#Test
public void test() {
TopKFrequentItems stream = new TopKFrequentItems(2);
stream.add("hell");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hero");
stream.add("hero");
stream.add("hero");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("home");
stream.add("go");
stream.add("go");
assertThat(stream.getItems()).hasSize(2).contains(new TopK("hero", 3), new TopK("hello", 8));
}
For more details refer this test case
use a Hash table to record all words' frequency while traverse the whole word sequence. In this phase, the key is "word" and the value is "word-frequency". This takes O(n) time.This is same as every one explained above
While insertion itself in hashmap , keep the Treeset(specific to java, there are implementations in every language) of size 10(k=10) to keep the top 10 frequent words. Till size is less than 10, keep adding it. If size equal to 10, if inserted element is greater than minimum element i.e. first element. If yes remove it and insert new element
To restrict the size of treeset see this link
Suppose we have a word sequence "ad" "ad" "boy" "big" "bad" "com" "come" "cold". And K=2.
as you mentioned "partitioning using the first letter of words", we got
("ad", "ad") ("boy", "big", "bad") ("com" "come" "cold")
"then partitioning the largest multi-word set using the next character until you have k single-word sets."
it will partition ("boy", "big", "bad") ("com" "come" "cold"), the first partition ("ad", "ad") is missed, while "ad" is actually the most frequent word.
Perhaps I misunderstand your point. Can you please detail your process about partition?
I believe this problem can be solved by an O(n) algorithm. We could make the sorting on the fly. In other words, the sorting in that case is a sub-problem of the traditional sorting problem since only one counter gets incremented by one every time we access the hash table. Initially, the list is sorted since all counters are zero. As we keep incrementing counters in the hash table, we bookkeep another array of hash values ordered by frequency as follows. Every time we increment a counter, we check its index in the ranked array and check if its count exceeds its predecessor in the list. If so, we swap these two elements. As such we obtain a solution that is at most O(n) where n is the number of words in the original text.
I was struggling with this as well and get inspired by #aly. Instead of sorting afterwards, we can just maintain a presorted list of words (List<Set<String>>) and the word will be in the set at position X where X is the current count of the word. In generally, here's how it works:
for each word, store it as part of map of it's occurrence: Map<String, Integer>.
then, based on the count, remove it from the previous count set, and add it into the new count set.
The drawback of this is the list maybe big - can be optimized by using a TreeMap<Integer, Set<String>> - but this will add some overhead. Ultimately we can use a mix of HashMap or our own data structure.
The code
public class WordFrequencyCounter {
private static final int WORD_SEPARATOR_MAX = 32; // UNICODE 0000-001F: control chars
Map<String, MutableCounter> counters = new HashMap<String, MutableCounter>();
List<Set<String>> reverseCounters = new ArrayList<Set<String>>();
private static class MutableCounter {
int i = 1;
}
public List<String> countMostFrequentWords(String text, int max) {
int lastPosition = 0;
int length = text.length();
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
char c = text.charAt(i);
if (c <= WORD_SEPARATOR_MAX) {
if (i != lastPosition) {
String word = text.substring(lastPosition, i);
MutableCounter counter = counters.get(word);
if (counter == null) {
counter = new MutableCounter();
counters.put(word, counter);
} else {
Set<String> strings = reverseCounters.get(counter.i);
strings.remove(word);
counter.i ++;
}
addToReverseLookup(counter.i, word);
}
lastPosition = i + 1;
}
}
List<String> ret = new ArrayList<String>();
int count = 0;
for (int i = reverseCounters.size() - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
Set<String> strings = reverseCounters.get(i);
for (String s : strings) {
ret.add(s);
System.out.print(s + ":" + i);
count++;
if (count == max) break;
}
if (count == max) break;
}
return ret;
}
private void addToReverseLookup(int count, String word) {
while (count >= reverseCounters.size()) {
reverseCounters.add(new HashSet<String>());
}
Set<String> strings = reverseCounters.get(count);
strings.add(word);
}
}
I just find out the other solution for this problem. But I am not sure it is right.
Solution:
Use a Hash table to record all words' frequency T(n) = O(n)
Choose first k elements of hash table, and restore them in one buffer (whose space = k). T(n) = O(k)
Each time, firstly we need find the current min element of the buffer, and just compare the min element of the buffer with the (n - k) elements of hash table one by one. If the element of hash table is greater than this min element of buffer, then drop the current buffer's min, and add the element of the hash table. So each time we find the min one in the buffer need T(n) = O(k), and traverse the whole hash table need T(n) = O(n - k). So the whole time complexity for this process is T(n) = O((n-k) * k).
After traverse the whole hash table, the result is in this buffer.
The whole time complexity: T(n) = O(n) + O(k) + O(kn - k^2) = O(kn + n - k^2 + k). Since, k is really smaller than n in general. So for this solution, the time complexity is T(n) = O(kn). That is linear time, when k is really small. Is it right? I am really not sure.
Try to think of special data structure to approach this kind of problems. In this case special kind of tree like trie to store strings in specific way, very efficient. Or second way to build your own solution like counting words. I guess this TB of data would be in English then we do have around 600,000 words in general so it'll be possible to store only those words and counting which strings would be repeated + this solution will need regex to eliminate some special characters. First solution will be faster, I'm pretty sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trie
This is an interesting idea to search and I could find this paper related to Top-K https://icmi.cs.ucsb.edu/research/tech_reports/reports/2005-23.pdf
Also there is an implementation of it here.
Simplest code to get the occurrence of most frequently used word.
function strOccurence(str){
var arr = str.split(" ");
var length = arr.length,temp = {},max;
while(length--){
if(temp[arr[length]] == undefined && arr[length].trim().length > 0)
{
temp[arr[length]] = 1;
}
else if(arr[length].trim().length > 0)
{
temp[arr[length]] = temp[arr[length]] + 1;
}
}
console.log(temp);
var max = [];
for(i in temp)
{
max[temp[i]] = i;
}
console.log(max[max.length])
//if you want second highest
console.log(max[max.length - 2])
}
In these situations, I recommend to use Java built-in features. Since, they are already well tested and stable. In this problem, I find the repetitions of the words by using HashMap data structure. Then, I push the results to an array of objects. I sort the object by Arrays.sort() and print the top k words and their repetitions.
import java.io.*;
import java.lang.reflect.Array;
import java.util.*;
public class TopKWordsTextFile {
static class SortObject implements Comparable<SortObject>{
private String key;
private int value;
public SortObject(String key, int value) {
super();
this.key = key;
this.value = value;
}
#Override
public int compareTo(SortObject o) {
//descending order
return o.value - this.value;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
HashMap<String,Integer> hm = new HashMap<>();
int k = 1;
try {
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(new FileInputStream("words.in")));
String line;
while ((line = br.readLine()) != null) {
// process the line.
//System.out.println(line);
String[] tokens = line.split(" ");
for(int i=0; i<tokens.length; i++){
if(hm.containsKey(tokens[i])){
//If the key already exists
Integer prev = hm.get(tokens[i]);
hm.put(tokens[i],prev+1);
}else{
//If the key doesn't exist
hm.put(tokens[i],1);
}
}
}
//Close the input
br.close();
//Print all words with their repetitions. You can use 3 for printing top 3 words.
k = hm.size();
// Get a set of the entries
Set set = hm.entrySet();
// Get an iterator
Iterator i = set.iterator();
int index = 0;
// Display elements
SortObject[] objects = new SortObject[hm.size()];
while(i.hasNext()) {
Map.Entry e = (Map.Entry)i.next();
//System.out.print("Key: "+e.getKey() + ": ");
//System.out.println(" Value: "+e.getValue());
String tempS = (String) e.getKey();
int tempI = (int) e.getValue();
objects[index] = new SortObject(tempS,tempI);
index++;
}
System.out.println();
//Sort the array
Arrays.sort(objects);
//Print top k
for(int j=0; j<k; j++){
System.out.println(objects[j].key+":"+objects[j].value);
}
} catch (IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
For more information, please visit https://github.com/m-vahidalizadeh/foundations/blob/master/src/algorithms/TopKWordsTextFile.java. I hope it helps.
**
C++11 Implementation of the above thought
**
class Solution {
public:
vector<int> topKFrequent(vector<int>& nums, int k) {
unordered_map<int,int> map;
for(int num : nums){
map[num]++;
}
vector<int> res;
// we use the priority queue, like the max-heap , we will keep (size-k) smallest elements in the queue
// pair<first, second>: first is frequency, second is number
priority_queue<pair<int,int>> pq;
for(auto it = map.begin(); it != map.end(); it++){
pq.push(make_pair(it->second, it->first));
// onece the size bigger than size-k, we will pop the value, which is the top k frequent element value
if(pq.size() > (int)map.size() - k){
res.push_back(pq.top().second);
pq.pop();
}
}
return res;
}
};
I am interested in implementing the Rabin-Karp algorithm to search for sub strings as stated on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabin-Karp_string_search_algorithm. Not for homework, but for self-interest. I have implemented the Rabin-Karp algorithm (shown below) and it works. However, the performance is really, really bad!!! I understand that my hash function is basic. However, it seems that a simple call to strstr() will always outperform my function rabin_karp(). I can understand why - the hash function is doing more work than a simple char-by-char compare each loop. What am I missing here? Should the Rabin-Karp algorithm be faster than a call to strstr()? When is the Rabin-Karp algorithm best used? Hence my self-interest. Have I even implemented the algorithm right?
size_t hash(char* str, size_t i)
{
size_t h = 0;
size_t magic_exp = 1;
// if (str != NULL)
{
while (i-- != 0)
{
magic_exp *= 101;
h += magic_exp + *str;
++str;
}
}
return h;
}
char* rabin_karp(char* s, char* find)
{
char* p = NULL;
if (s != NULL && find != NULL)
{
size_t n = strlen(s);
size_t m = strlen(find);
if (n > m)
{
size_t hfind = hash(find, m);
char* end = s + (n - m + 1);
for (char* i = s; i < end; ++i)
{
size_t hs = hash(i, m);
if (hs == hfind)
{
if (strncmp(i, find, m) == 0)
{
p = i;
break;
}
}
}
}
}
return p;
}
You haven't implemented the hash correctly. The key to Rabin-Karp is to incrementally update the hash as the potential match moves along the string to be searched. As you've determined, if you recalculate the entire hash for each potential match position, things will be really slow.
For every case except for the first comparison, your hash function should take an existing hash, one new character, and one old character, and return an updated hash.
Rabin-Karp is a rolling hash algorithm - the idea is to be able to move the substring one position to either direction(left or right) and be able to recompute the hash with constant number of operations. As you have implemented it the search has complexity O(N * L) where N is the length of the big string and L is the length of the string you are searching for. This is the complexity of the most naive approach and is in fact a little pesimization to it in my opinion.
To improve your algorithm precompute the exponents of magic_exp and use them to 'roll' your hash - basically just as with polynoms you need to subtract the highest degree multiply by magic_exp and add the hash of the symbol to the right(for moving the hash to the right).
Hope this helps.
strstr is using the KMP algorithm which is also linear in nature. This means that the complexity of the two algorithms is approximately the same. From then on the constant is the important factor. Especially in the case where you have bad hash functions with a lot of collisions the KMP will be a lot faster.
EDIT: One more thing. It is very important for the Rabin Karp algorithm to have all the hash codes of the prefixes precalculated. Now you are not implementing proper Rabin Karp, because the calls to your function will be linear, not constant in complexity. (Which by the way means that wikipedia is not very good source to learn Rabin Karp from).