Here is my code,but i'lld like to optimize it.I don't like the idea of it testing all the numbers before the square root of n,considering the fact that one could be faced with finding the factors of a large number. Your answers would be of great help. Thanks in advance.
unsigned int* factor(unsigned int n)
{
unsigned int tab[40];
int dim=0;
for(int i=2;i<=(int)sqrt(n);++i)
{
while(n%i==0)
{
tab[dim++]=i;
n/=i;
}
}
if(n>1)
tab[dim++]=n;
return tab;
}
Here's a suggestion on how to do this in 'proper' c++ (since you tagged as c++).
PS. Almost forgot to mention: I optimized the call to sqrt away :)
See it live on http://liveworkspace.org/code/6e2fcc2f7956fafbf637b54be2db014a
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
#include <algorithm>
typedef unsigned int uint;
std::vector<uint> factor(uint n)
{
std::vector<uint> tab;
int dim=0;
for(unsigned long i=2;i*i <= n; ++i)
{
while(n%i==0)
{
tab.push_back(i);
n/=i;
}
}
if(n>1)
tab.push_back(n);
return tab;
}
void test(uint x)
{
auto v = factor(x);
std::cout << x << ":\t";
std::copy(v.begin(), v.end(), std::ostream_iterator<uint>(std::cout, ";"));
std::cout << std::endl;
}
int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
{
test(1);
test(2);
test(4);
test(43);
test(47);
test(9997);
}
Output
1:
2: 2;
4: 2;2;
43: 43;
47: 47;
9997: 13;769;
There's a simple change that will cut the run time somewhat: factor out all the 2's, then only check odd numbers.
If you use
... i*i <= n; ...
It may run much faster than i <= sqrt(n)
By the way, you should try to handle factors of negative n or at least be sure you never pass a neg number
I'm afraid you cannot. There is no known method in the planet can factorize large integers in polynomial time. However, there are some methods can help you slightly (not significantly) speed up your program. Search Wikipedia for more references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization
As seen from your solution , you find basically all prime numbers ( the condition while (n%i == 0)) works like that , especially for the case of large numbers , you could compute prime numbers beforehand, and keep checking only those. The prime number calculation could be done using Sieve of Eratosthenes method or some other efficient method.
unsigned int* factor(unsigned int n)
If unsigned int is the typical 32-bit type, the numbers are too small for any of the more advanced algorithms to pay off. The usual enhancements for the trial division are of course worthwhile.
If you're moving the division by 2 out of the loop, and divide only by odd numbers in the loop, as mentioned by Pete Becker, you're essentially halving the number of divisions needed to factor the input number, and thus speed up the function by a factor of very nearly 2.
If you carry that one step further and also eliminate the multiples of 3 from the divisors in the loop, you reduce the number of divisions and hence increase the speed by a factor close to 3 (on average; most numbers don't have any large prime factors, but are divisible by 2 or by 3, and for those the speedup is much smaller; but those numbers are quick to factor anyway. If you factor a longer range of numbers, the bulk of the time is spent factoring the few numbers with large prime divisors).
// if your compiler doesn't transform that to bit-operations, do it yourself
while(n % 2 == 0) {
tab[dim++] = 2;
n /= 2;
}
while(n % 3 == 0) {
tab[dim++] = 3;
n /= 3;
}
for(int d = 5, s = 2; d*d <= n; d += s, s = 6-s) {
while(n % d == 0) {
tab[dim++] = d;
n /= d;
}
}
If you're calling that function really often, it would be worthwhile to precompute the 6542 primes not exceeding 65535, store them in a static array, and divide only by the primes to eliminate all divisions that are a priori guaranteed to not find a divisor.
If unsigned int happens to be larger than 32 bits, then using one of the more advanced algorithms would be profitable. You should still begin with trial divisions to find the small prime factors (whether small should mean <= 1000, <= 10000, <= 100000 or perhaps <= 1000000 would need to be tested, my gut feeling says one of the smaller values would be better on average). If after the trial division phase the factorisation is not yet complete, check whether the remaining factor is prime using e.g. a deterministic (for the range in question) variant of the Miller-Rabin test. If it's not, search a factor using your favourite advanced algorithm. For 64 bit numbers, I'd recommend Pollard's rho algorithm or an elliptic curve factorisation. Pollard's rho algorithm is easier to implement and for numbers of that magnitude finds factors in comparable time, so that's my first recommendation.
Int is way to small to encounter any performance problems. I just tried to measure the time of your algorithm with boost but couldn't get any useful output (too fast). So you shouldn't worry about integers at all.
If you use i*i I was able to calculate 1.000.000 9-digit integers in 15.097 seconds. It's good to optimize an algorithm but instead of "wasting" time (depends on your situation) it's important to consider if a small improvement really is worth the effort. Sometimes you have to ask yourself if you rally need to be able to calculate 1.000.000 ints in 10 seconds or if 15 is fine as well.
What is the fastest way to find the sum of decimal digits?
The following code is what I wrote but it is very very slow for range 1 to 1000000000000000000
long long sum_of_digits(long long input) {
long long total = 0;
while (input != 0) {
total += input % 10;
input /= 10;
}
return total;
}
int main ( int argc, char** argv) {
for ( long long i = 1L; i <= 1000000000000000000L; i++) {
sum_of_digits(i);
}
return 0;
}
I'm assuming what you are trying to do is along the lines of
#include <iostream>
const long long limit = 1000000000000000000LL;
int main () {
long long grand_total = 0;
for (long long ii = 1; ii <= limit; ++ii) {
grand_total += sum_of_digits(i);
}
std::cout << "Grand total = " << grand_total << "\n";
return 0;
}
This won't work for two reasons:
It will take a long long time.
It will overflow.
To deal with the overflow problem, you will either have to put a bound on your upper limit or use some bignum package. I'll leave solving that problem up to you.
To deal with the computational burden you need to get creative. If you know the upper limit is limited to powers of 10 this is fairly easy. If the upper limit can be some arbitrary number you will have to get a bit more creative.
First look at the problem of computing the sum of digits of all integers from 0 to 10n-1 (e.g., 0 to 9 (n=1), 0 to 99 (n=2), etc.) Denote the sum of digits of all integers from 10n-1 as Sn. For n=1 (0 to 9), this is just 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9=45 (9*10/2). Thus S1=45.
For n=2 (0 to 99), you are summing 0-9 ten times and you are summing 0-9 ten times again. For n=3 (0 to 999), you are summing 0-99 ten times and you are summing 0-9 100 times. For n=4 (0 to 9999), you are summing 0-999 ten times and you are summing 0-9 1000 times. In general, Sn=10Sn-1+10n-1S1 as a recursive expression. This simplifies to Sn=(9n10n)/2.
If the upper limit is of the form 10n, the solution is the above Sn plus one more for the number 1000...000. If the upper limit is an arbitrary number you will need to get creative once again. Think along the lines that went into developing the formula for Sn.
You can break this down recursively. The sum of the digits of an 18-digit number are the sums of the first 9 digits plus the last 9 digits. Likewise the sum of the digits of a 9-bit number will be the sum of the first 4 or 5 digits plus the sum of the last 5 or 4 digits. Naturally you can special-case when the value is 0.
Reading your edit: computing that function in a loop for i between 1 and 1000000000000000000 takes a long time. This is a no brainer.
1000000000000000000 is one billion billion. Your processor will be able to do at best billions of operations per second. Even with a nonexistant 4-5 Ghz processor, and assuming best case it compiles down to an add, a mod, a div, and a compare jump, you could only do 1 billion iterations per second, meaning it will take on the order of 1 billion seconds.
You probably don't want to do it in a bruteforce way. This seems to be more of a logical thinking question.
Note - 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 = N(N+1)/2 = 45.
---- Changing the answer to make it clearer after David's comment
See David's answer - I had it wrong
Quite late to the party, but anyways, here is my solution. Sorry it's in Python and not C++, but it should be relatively easy to translate. And because this is primarily an algorithm problem, I hope that's ok.
As for the overflow problem, the only thing that comes to mind is to use arrays of digits instead of actual numbers. Given this algorithm I hope it won't affect performance too much.
https://gist.github.com/frnhr/7608873
It uses these three recursions I found by looking and poking at the problem. Rather then trying to come up with some general and arcane equations, here are three examples. A general case should be easily visible from those.
relation 1
Reduces function calls with arbitrary argument to several recursive calls with more predictable arguments for use in relations 2 and 3.
foo(3456) == foo(3000)
+ foo(400) + 400 * (3)
+ foo(50) + 50 * (3 + 4)
+ foo(6) + 6 * (3 + 4 + 5)
relation 2
Reduce calls with an argument in the form L*10^M (e.g: 30, 7000, 900000) to recursive call usable for relation 3. These triangular numbers popped in quite uninvited (but welcome) :)
triangular_numbers = [0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36] # 0 not used
foo(3000) == 3 * foo(1000) + triangular_numbers[3 - 1] * 1000
Only useful if L > 1. It holds true for L = 1 but is trivial. In that case, go directly to relation 3.
relation 3
Recursively reduce calls with argument in format 1*10^M to a call with argument that's divided by 10.
foo(1000) == foo(100) * 10 + 44 * 100 + 100 - 9 # 44 and 9 are constants
Ultimately you only have to really calculate the sum or digits for numbers 0 to 10, and it turns out than only up to 3 of these calculations are needed. Everything else is taken care of with this recursion. I'm pretty sure it runs in O(logN) time. That's FAAST!!!!!11one
On my laptop it calculates the sum of digit sums for a given number with over 1300 digits in under 7 seconds! Your test (1000000000000000000) gets calculated in 0.000112057 seconds!
I think you cannot do better than O(N) where N is the number of digits in the given number(which is not computationally expensive)
However if I understood your question correctly (the range) you want to output the sum of digits for a range of numbers. In that case, you can increment by one when you go from number0 to number9 and then decrease by 8.
You will need to cheat - look for mathematical patterns that let you short-cut your computations.
For example, do you really need to test that input != 0 every time? Does it matter if you add 0/10 several times? Since it won't matter, consider unrolling the loop.
Can you do the calculation in a larger base, eg, base 10^2, 10^3, etcetera, that might allow you to reduce the number of digits, which you'll then have to convert back to base 10? If this works, you'll be able to implement a cache more easily.
Consider looking at compiler intrinsics that let you give hints to the compiler for branch prediction.
Given that this is C++, consider implementing this using template metaprogramming.
Given that sum_of_digits is purely functional, consider caching the results.
Now, most of those suggestions will backfire - but the point I'm making is that if you have hit the limits of what your computer can do for a given algorithm, you do need to find a different solution.
This is probably an excellent starting point if you want to investigate this in detail: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DigitSum.html
Possibility 1:
You could make it faster by feeding the result of one iteration of the loop into the next iteration.
For example, if i == 365, the result is 14. In the next loop, i == 366 -- 1 more than the previous result. The sum is also 1 more: 3 + 6 + 6 = 15.
Problems arise when there is a carry digit. If i == 99 (ie. result = 18), the next loop's result isn't 19, it's 1. You'll need extra code to detect this case.
Possibility 2:
While thinking though the above, it occurred to me that the sequence of results from sum_of_digits when graphed would resemble a sawtooth. With some analysis of the resulting graph (which I leave as an exercise for the reader), it may be possible to identify a method to allow direct calculation of the sum result.
However, as some others have pointed out: Even with the fastest possible implementation of sum_of_digits and the most optimised loop code, you can't possibly calculate 1000000000000000000 results in any useful timeframe, and certainly not in less than one second.
Edit: It seems you want the the sum of the actual digits such that: 12345 = 1+2+3+4+5 not the count of digits, nor the sum of all numbers 1 to 12345 (inclusive);
As such the fastest you can get is:
long long sum_of_digits(long long input) {
long long total = input % 10;
while ((input /= 10) != 0)
total += input % 10;
return total;
}
Which is still going to be slow when you're running enough iterations. Your requirement of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000L iterations is One Million, Million, Million. Given 100 Million takes around 10,000ms on my computer, one can expect that it will take 100ms per 1 million records, and you want to do that another million million times. There are only 86400 seconds in a day, so at best we can compute around 86,400 Million records per day. It would take one computer
Lets suppose your method could be performed in a single float operation (somehow), suppose you are using the K computer which is currently the fastest (Rmax) supercomputer at over 10 petaflops, if you do the math that is = 10,000 Million Million floating operations per second. This means that your 1 Million, Million, Million loop will take the world's fastest non-distributed supercomputer 100 seconds to compute the sums (IF it took 1 float operation to calculate, which it can't), so you will need to wait around for quite some time for computers to become 100 so much more powerful for your solution to be runable in under one second.
What ever you're trying to do, you're either trying to do an unsolvable problem in near real-time (eg: graphics calculation related) or you misunderstand the question / task that was given you, or you are expected to perform something faster than any (non-distributed) computer system can do.
If your task is actually to sum all the digits of a range as you show and then output them, the answer is not to improve the for loop. for example:
1 = 0
10 = 46
100 = 901
1000 = 13501
10000 = 180001
100000 = 2250001
1000000 = 27000001
10000000 = 315000001
100000000 = 3600000001
From this you could work out a formula to actually compute the total sum of all digits for all numbers from 1 to N. But it's not clear what you really want, beyond a much faster computer.
No the best, but simple:
int DigitSumRange(int a, int b) {
int s = 0;
for (; a <= b; a++)
for(c : to_string(a))
s += c-48;
return s;
}
A Python function is given below, which converts the number to a string and then to a list of digits and then finds the sum of these digits.
def SumDigits(n):
ns=list(str(n))
z=[int(d) for d in ns]
return(sum(z))
In C++ one of the fastest way can be using strings.
first of all get the input from users in a string. Then add each element of string after converting it into int. It can be done using -> (str[i] - '0').
#include<iostream>
#include<string>
using namespace std;
int main()
{ string str;
cin>>str;
long long int sum=0;
for(long long int i=0;i<str.length();i++){
sum = sum + (str[i]-'0');
}
cout<<sum;
}
The formula for finding the sum of the digits of numbers between 1 to N is:
(1 + N)*(N/2)
[http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57919.html][1]
There is a class written in C# which supports a number with more than the supported max-limit of long.
You can find it here. [Oyster.Math][2]
Using this class, I have generated a block of code in c#, may be its of some help to you.
using Oyster.Math;
class Program
{
private static DateTime startDate;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
startDate = DateTime.Now;
Console.WriteLine("Finding Sum of digits from {0} to {1}", 1L, 1000000000000000000L);
sum_of_digits(1000000000000000000L);
Console.WriteLine("Time Taken for the process: {0},", DateTime.Now - startDate);
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void sum_of_digits(long input)
{
var answer = IntX.Multiply(IntX.Parse(Convert.ToString(1 + input)), IntX.Parse(Convert.ToString(input / 2)), MultiplyMode.Classic);
Console.WriteLine("Sum: {0}", answer);
}
}
Please ignore this comment if it is not relevant for your context.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20171225182632/http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57919.html
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20171223050751/http://intx.codeplex.com/
If you want to find the sum for the range say 1 to N then simply do the following
long sum = N(N+1)/2;
it is the fastest way.
Most people with a degree in CS will certainly know what Big O stands for.
It helps us to measure how well an algorithm scales.
But I'm curious, how do you calculate or approximate the complexity of your algorithms?
I'll do my best to explain it here on simple terms, but be warned that this topic takes my students a couple of months to finally grasp. You can find more information on the Chapter 2 of the Data Structures and Algorithms in Java book.
There is no mechanical procedure that can be used to get the BigOh.
As a "cookbook", to obtain the BigOh from a piece of code you first need to realize that you are creating a math formula to count how many steps of computations get executed given an input of some size.
The purpose is simple: to compare algorithms from a theoretical point of view, without the need to execute the code. The lesser the number of steps, the faster the algorithm.
For example, let's say you have this piece of code:
int sum(int* data, int N) {
int result = 0; // 1
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) { // 2
result += data[i]; // 3
}
return result; // 4
}
This function returns the sum of all the elements of the array, and we want to create a formula to count the computational complexity of that function:
Number_Of_Steps = f(N)
So we have f(N), a function to count the number of computational steps. The input of the function is the size of the structure to process. It means that this function is called such as:
Number_Of_Steps = f(data.length)
The parameter N takes the data.length value. Now we need the actual definition of the function f(). This is done from the source code, in which each interesting line is numbered from 1 to 4.
There are many ways to calculate the BigOh. From this point forward we are going to assume that every sentence that doesn't depend on the size of the input data takes a constant C number computational steps.
We are going to add the individual number of steps of the function, and neither the local variable declaration nor the return statement depends on the size of the data array.
That means that lines 1 and 4 takes C amount of steps each, and the function is somewhat like this:
f(N) = C + ??? + C
The next part is to define the value of the for statement. Remember that we are counting the number of computational steps, meaning that the body of the for statement gets executed N times. That's the same as adding C, N times:
f(N) = C + (C + C + ... + C) + C = C + N * C + C
There is no mechanical rule to count how many times the body of the for gets executed, you need to count it by looking at what does the code do. To simplify the calculations, we are ignoring the variable initialization, condition and increment parts of the for statement.
To get the actual BigOh we need the Asymptotic analysis of the function. This is roughly done like this:
Take away all the constants C.
From f() get the polynomium in its standard form.
Divide the terms of the polynomium and sort them by the rate of growth.
Keep the one that grows bigger when N approaches infinity.
Our f() has two terms:
f(N) = 2 * C * N ^ 0 + 1 * C * N ^ 1
Taking away all the C constants and redundant parts:
f(N) = 1 + N ^ 1
Since the last term is the one which grows bigger when f() approaches infinity (think on limits) this is the BigOh argument, and the sum() function has a BigOh of:
O(N)
There are a few tricks to solve some tricky ones: use summations whenever you can.
As an example, this code can be easily solved using summations:
for (i = 0; i < 2*n; i += 2) { // 1
for (j=n; j > i; j--) { // 2
foo(); // 3
}
}
The first thing you needed to be asked is the order of execution of foo(). While the usual is to be O(1), you need to ask your professors about it. O(1) means (almost, mostly) constant C, independent of the size N.
The for statement on the sentence number one is tricky. While the index ends at 2 * N, the increment is done by two. That means that the first for gets executed only N steps, and we need to divide the count by two.
f(N) = Summation(i from 1 to 2 * N / 2)( ... ) =
= Summation(i from 1 to N)( ... )
The sentence number two is even trickier since it depends on the value of i. Take a look: the index i takes the values: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ..., 2 * N, and the second for get executed: N times the first one, N - 2 the second, N - 4 the third... up to the N / 2 stage, on which the second for never gets executed.
On formula, that means:
f(N) = Summation(i from 1 to N)( Summation(j = ???)( ) )
Again, we are counting the number of steps. And by definition, every summation should always start at one, and end at a number bigger-or-equal than one.
f(N) = Summation(i from 1 to N)( Summation(j = 1 to (N - (i - 1) * 2)( C ) )
(We are assuming that foo() is O(1) and takes C steps.)
We have a problem here: when i takes the value N / 2 + 1 upwards, the inner Summation ends at a negative number! That's impossible and wrong. We need to split the summation in two, being the pivotal point the moment i takes N / 2 + 1.
f(N) = Summation(i from 1 to N / 2)( Summation(j = 1 to (N - (i - 1) * 2)) * ( C ) ) + Summation(i from 1 to N / 2) * ( C )
Since the pivotal moment i > N / 2, the inner for won't get executed, and we are assuming a constant C execution complexity on its body.
Now the summations can be simplified using some identity rules:
Summation(w from 1 to N)( C ) = N * C
Summation(w from 1 to N)( A (+/-) B ) = Summation(w from 1 to N)( A ) (+/-) Summation(w from 1 to N)( B )
Summation(w from 1 to N)( w * C ) = C * Summation(w from 1 to N)( w ) (C is a constant, independent of w)
Summation(w from 1 to N)( w ) = (N * (N + 1)) / 2
Applying some algebra:
f(N) = Summation(i from 1 to N / 2)( (N - (i - 1) * 2) * ( C ) ) + (N / 2)( C )
f(N) = C * Summation(i from 1 to N / 2)( (N - (i - 1) * 2)) + (N / 2)( C )
f(N) = C * (Summation(i from 1 to N / 2)( N ) - Summation(i from 1 to N / 2)( (i - 1) * 2)) + (N / 2)( C )
f(N) = C * (( N ^ 2 / 2 ) - 2 * Summation(i from 1 to N / 2)( i - 1 )) + (N / 2)( C )
=> Summation(i from 1 to N / 2)( i - 1 ) = Summation(i from 1 to N / 2 - 1)( i )
f(N) = C * (( N ^ 2 / 2 ) - 2 * Summation(i from 1 to N / 2 - 1)( i )) + (N / 2)( C )
f(N) = C * (( N ^ 2 / 2 ) - 2 * ( (N / 2 - 1) * (N / 2 - 1 + 1) / 2) ) + (N / 2)( C )
=> (N / 2 - 1) * (N / 2 - 1 + 1) / 2 =
(N / 2 - 1) * (N / 2) / 2 =
((N ^ 2 / 4) - (N / 2)) / 2 =
(N ^ 2 / 8) - (N / 4)
f(N) = C * (( N ^ 2 / 2 ) - 2 * ( (N ^ 2 / 8) - (N / 4) )) + (N / 2)( C )
f(N) = C * (( N ^ 2 / 2 ) - ( (N ^ 2 / 4) - (N / 2) )) + (N / 2)( C )
f(N) = C * (( N ^ 2 / 2 ) - (N ^ 2 / 4) + (N / 2)) + (N / 2)( C )
f(N) = C * ( N ^ 2 / 4 ) + C * (N / 2) + C * (N / 2)
f(N) = C * ( N ^ 2 / 4 ) + 2 * C * (N / 2)
f(N) = C * ( N ^ 2 / 4 ) + C * N
f(N) = C * 1/4 * N ^ 2 + C * N
And the BigOh is:
O(N²)
Big O gives the upper bound for time complexity of an algorithm. It is usually used in conjunction with processing data sets (lists) but can be used elsewhere.
A few examples of how it's used in C code.
Say we have an array of n elements
int array[n];
If we wanted to access the first element of the array this would be O(1) since it doesn't matter how big the array is, it always takes the same constant time to get the first item.
x = array[0];
If we wanted to find a number in the list:
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
if(array[i] == numToFind){ return i; }
}
This would be O(n) since at most we would have to look through the entire list to find our number. The Big-O is still O(n) even though we might find our number the first try and run through the loop once because Big-O describes the upper bound for an algorithm (omega is for lower bound and theta is for tight bound).
When we get to nested loops:
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
for(int j = i; j < n; j++){
array[j] += 2;
}
}
This is O(n^2) since for each pass of the outer loop ( O(n) ) we have to go through the entire list again so the n's multiply leaving us with n squared.
This is barely scratching the surface but when you get to analyzing more complex algorithms complex math involving proofs comes into play. Hope this familiarizes you with the basics at least though.
While knowing how to figure out the Big O time for your particular problem is useful, knowing some general cases can go a long way in helping you make decisions in your algorithm.
Here are some of the most common cases, lifted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Orders_of_common_functions:
O(1) - Determining if a number is even or odd; using a constant-size lookup table or hash table
O(logn) - Finding an item in a sorted array with a binary search
O(n) - Finding an item in an unsorted list; adding two n-digit numbers
O(n2) - Multiplying two n-digit numbers by a simple algorithm; adding two n×n matrices; bubble sort or insertion sort
O(n3) - Multiplying two n×n matrices by simple algorithm
O(cn) - Finding the (exact) solution to the traveling salesman problem using dynamic programming; determining if two logical statements are equivalent using brute force
O(n!) - Solving the traveling salesman problem via brute-force search
O(nn) - Often used instead of O(n!) to derive simpler formulas for asymptotic complexity
Small reminder: the big O notation is used to denote asymptotic complexity (that is, when the size of the problem grows to infinity), and it hides a constant.
This means that between an algorithm in O(n) and one in O(n2), the fastest is not always the first one (though there always exists a value of n such that for problems of size >n, the first algorithm is the fastest).
Note that the hidden constant very much depends on the implementation!
Also, in some cases, the runtime is not a deterministic function of the size n of the input. Take sorting using quick sort for example: the time needed to sort an array of n elements is not a constant but depends on the starting configuration of the array.
There are different time complexities:
Worst case (usually the simplest to figure out, though not always very meaningful)
Average case (usually much harder to figure out...)
...
A good introduction is An Introduction to the Analysis of Algorithms by R. Sedgewick and P. Flajolet.
As you say, premature optimisation is the root of all evil, and (if possible) profiling really should always be used when optimising code. It can even help you determine the complexity of your algorithms.
Seeing the answers here I think we can conclude that most of us do indeed approximate the order of the algorithm by looking at it and use common sense instead of calculating it with, for example, the master method as we were thought at university.
With that said I must add that even the professor encouraged us (later on) to actually think about it instead of just calculating it.
Also I would like to add how it is done for recursive functions:
suppose we have a function like (scheme code):
(define (fac n)
(if (= n 0)
1
(* n (fac (- n 1)))))
which recursively calculates the factorial of the given number.
The first step is to try and determine the performance characteristic for the body of the function only in this case, nothing special is done in the body, just a multiplication (or the return of the value 1).
So the performance for the body is: O(1) (constant).
Next try and determine this for the number of recursive calls. In this case we have n-1 recursive calls.
So the performance for the recursive calls is: O(n-1) (order is n, as we throw away the insignificant parts).
Then put those two together and you then have the performance for the whole recursive function:
1 * (n-1) = O(n)
Peter, to answer your raised issues; the method I describe here actually handles this quite well. But keep in mind that this is still an approximation and not a full mathematically correct answer. The method described here is also one of the methods we were taught at university, and if I remember correctly was used for far more advanced algorithms than the factorial I used in this example.
Of course it all depends on how well you can estimate the running time of the body of the function and the number of recursive calls, but that is just as true for the other methods.
If your cost is a polynomial, just keep the highest-order term, without its multiplier. E.g.:
O((n/2 + 1)*(n/2)) = O(n2/4 + n/2) = O(n2/4) = O(n2)
This doesn't work for infinite series, mind you. There is no single recipe for the general case, though for some common cases, the following inequalities apply:
O(log N) < O(N) < O(N log N) < O(N2) < O(Nk) < O(en) < O(n!)
I think about it in terms of information. Any problem consists of learning a certain number of bits.
Your basic tool is the concept of decision points and their entropy. The entropy of a decision point is the average information it will give you. For example, if a program contains a decision point with two branches, it's entropy is the sum of the probability of each branch times the log2 of the inverse probability of that branch. That's how much you learn by executing that decision.
For example, an if statement having two branches, both equally likely, has an entropy of 1/2 * log(2/1) + 1/2 * log(2/1) = 1/2 * 1 + 1/2 * 1 = 1. So its entropy is 1 bit.
Suppose you are searching a table of N items, like N=1024. That is a 10-bit problem because log(1024) = 10 bits. So if you can search it with IF statements that have equally likely outcomes, it should take 10 decisions.
That's what you get with binary search.
Suppose you are doing linear search. You look at the first element and ask if it's the one you want. The probabilities are 1/1024 that it is, and 1023/1024 that it isn't. The entropy of that decision is 1/1024*log(1024/1) + 1023/1024 * log(1024/1023) = 1/1024 * 10 + 1023/1024 * about 0 = about .01 bit. You've learned very little! The second decision isn't much better. That is why linear search is so slow. In fact it's exponential in the number of bits you need to learn.
Suppose you are doing indexing. Suppose the table is pre-sorted into a lot of bins, and you use some of all of the bits in the key to index directly to the table entry. If there are 1024 bins, the entropy is 1/1024 * log(1024) + 1/1024 * log(1024) + ... for all 1024 possible outcomes. This is 1/1024 * 10 times 1024 outcomes, or 10 bits of entropy for that one indexing operation. That is why indexing search is fast.
Now think about sorting. You have N items, and you have a list. For each item, you have to search for where the item goes in the list, and then add it to the list. So sorting takes roughly N times the number of steps of the underlying search.
So sorts based on binary decisions having roughly equally likely outcomes all take about O(N log N) steps. An O(N) sort algorithm is possible if it is based on indexing search.
I've found that nearly all algorithmic performance issues can be looked at in this way.
Lets start from the beginning.
First of all, accept the principle that certain simple operations on data can be done in O(1) time, that is, in time that is independent of the size of the input. These primitive operations in C consist of
Arithmetic operations (e.g. + or %).
Logical operations (e.g., &&).
Comparison operations (e.g., <=).
Structure accessing operations (e.g. array-indexing like A[i], or pointer fol-
lowing with the -> operator).
Simple assignment such as copying a value into a variable.
Calls to library functions (e.g., scanf, printf).
The justification for this principle requires a detailed study of the machine instructions (primitive steps) of a typical computer. Each of the described operations can be done with some small number of machine instructions; often only one or two instructions are needed.
As a consequence, several kinds of statements in C can be executed in O(1) time, that is, in some constant amount of time independent of input. These simple include
Assignment statements that do not involve function calls in their expressions.
Read statements.
Write statements that do not require function calls to evaluate arguments.
The jump statements break, continue, goto, and return expression, where
expression does not contain a function call.
In C, many for-loops are formed by initializing an index variable to some value and
incrementing that variable by 1 each time around the loop. The for-loop ends when
the index reaches some limit. For instance, the for-loop
for (i = 0; i < n-1; i++)
{
small = i;
for (j = i+1; j < n; j++)
if (A[j] < A[small])
small = j;
temp = A[small];
A[small] = A[i];
A[i] = temp;
}
uses index variable i. It increments i by 1 each time around the loop, and the iterations
stop when i reaches n − 1.
However, for the moment, focus on the simple form of for-loop, where the difference between the final and initial values, divided by the amount by which the index variable is incremented tells us how many times we go around the loop. That count is exact, unless there are ways to exit the loop via a jump statement; it is an upper bound on the number of iterations in any case.
For instance, the for-loop iterates ((n − 1) − 0)/1 = n − 1 times,
since 0 is the initial value of i, n − 1 is the highest value reached by i (i.e., when i
reaches n−1, the loop stops and no iteration occurs with i = n−1), and 1 is added
to i at each iteration of the loop.
In the simplest case, where the time spent in the loop body is the same for each
iteration, we can multiply the big-oh upper bound for the body by the number of
times around the loop. Strictly speaking, we must then add O(1) time to initialize
the loop index and O(1) time for the first comparison of the loop index with the
limit, because we test one more time than we go around the loop. However, unless
it is possible to execute the loop zero times, the time to initialize the loop and test
the limit once is a low-order term that can be dropped by the summation rule.
Now consider this example:
(1) for (j = 0; j < n; j++)
(2) A[i][j] = 0;
We know that line (1) takes O(1) time. Clearly, we go around the loop n times, as
we can determine by subtracting the lower limit from the upper limit found on line
(1) and then adding 1. Since the body, line (2), takes O(1) time, we can neglect the
time to increment j and the time to compare j with n, both of which are also O(1).
Thus, the running time of lines (1) and (2) is the product of n and O(1), which is O(n).
Similarly, we can bound the running time of the outer loop consisting of lines
(2) through (4), which is
(2) for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
(3) for (j = 0; j < n; j++)
(4) A[i][j] = 0;
We have already established that the loop of lines (3) and (4) takes O(n) time.
Thus, we can neglect the O(1) time to increment i and to test whether i < n in
each iteration, concluding that each iteration of the outer loop takes O(n) time.
The initialization i = 0 of the outer loop and the (n + 1)st test of the condition
i < n likewise take O(1) time and can be neglected. Finally, we observe that we go
around the outer loop n times, taking O(n) time for each iteration, giving a total
O(n^2) running time.
A more practical example.
If you want to estimate the order of your code empirically rather than by analyzing the code, you could stick in a series of increasing values of n and time your code. Plot your timings on a log scale. If the code is O(x^n), the values should fall on a line of slope n.
This has several advantages over just studying the code. For one thing, you can see whether you're in the range where the run time approaches its asymptotic order. Also, you may find that some code that you thought was order O(x) is really order O(x^2), for example, because of time spent in library calls.
Basically the thing that crops up 90% of the time is just analyzing loops. Do you have single, double, triple nested loops? The you have O(n), O(n^2), O(n^3) running time.
Very rarely (unless you are writing a platform with an extensive base library (like for instance, the .NET BCL, or C++'s STL) you will encounter anything that is more difficult than just looking at your loops (for statements, while, goto, etc...)
Less useful generally, I think, but for the sake of completeness there is also a Big Omega Ω, which defines a lower-bound on an algorithm's complexity, and a Big Theta Θ, which defines both an upper and lower bound.
Big O notation is useful because it's easy to work with and hides unnecessary complications and details (for some definition of unnecessary). One nice way of working out the complexity of divide and conquer algorithms is the tree method. Let's say you have a version of quicksort with the median procedure, so you split the array into perfectly balanced subarrays every time.
Now build a tree corresponding to all the arrays you work with. At the root you have the original array, the root has two children which are the subarrays. Repeat this until you have single element arrays at the bottom.
Since we can find the median in O(n) time and split the array in two parts in O(n) time, the work done at each node is O(k) where k is the size of the array. Each level of the tree contains (at most) the entire array so the work per level is O(n) (the sizes of the subarrays add up to n, and since we have O(k) per level we can add this up). There are only log(n) levels in the tree since each time we halve the input.
Therefore we can upper bound the amount of work by O(n*log(n)).
However, Big O hides some details which we sometimes can't ignore. Consider computing the Fibonacci sequence with
a=0;
b=1;
for (i = 0; i <n; i++) {
tmp = b;
b = a + b;
a = tmp;
}
and lets just assume the a and b are BigIntegers in Java or something that can handle arbitrarily large numbers. Most people would say this is an O(n) algorithm without flinching. The reasoning is that you have n iterations in the for loop and O(1) work in side the loop.
But Fibonacci numbers are large, the n-th Fibonacci number is exponential in n so just storing it will take on the order of n bytes. Performing addition with big integers will take O(n) amount of work. So the total amount of work done in this procedure is
1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = n(n-1)/2 = O(n^2)
So this algorithm runs in quadradic time!
Familiarity with the algorithms/data structures I use and/or quick glance analysis of iteration nesting. The difficulty is when you call a library function, possibly multiple times - you can often be unsure of whether you are calling the function unnecessarily at times or what implementation they are using. Maybe library functions should have a complexity/efficiency measure, whether that be Big O or some other metric, that is available in documentation or even IntelliSense.
Break down the algorithm into pieces you know the big O notation for, and combine through big O operators. That's the only way I know of.
For more information, check the Wikipedia page on the subject.
As to "how do you calculate" Big O, this is part of Computational complexity theory. For some (many) special cases you may be able to come with some simple heuristics (like multiplying loop counts for nested loops), esp. when all you want is any upper bound estimation, and you do not mind if it is too pessimistic - which I guess is probably what your question is about.
If you really want to answer your question for any algorithm the best you can do is to apply the theory. Besides of simplistic "worst case" analysis I have found Amortized analysis very useful in practice.
For the 1st case, the inner loop is executed n-i times, so the total number of executions is the sum for i going from 0 to n-1 (because lower than, not lower than or equal) of the n-i. You get finally n*(n + 1) / 2, so O(n²/2) = O(n²).
For the 2nd loop, i is between 0 and n included for the outer loop; then the inner loop is executed when j is strictly greater than n, which is then impossible.
I would like to explain the Big-O in a little bit different aspect.
Big-O is just to compare the complexity of the programs which means how fast are they growing when the inputs are increasing and not the exact time which is spend to do the action.
IMHO in the big-O formulas you better not to use more complex equations (you might just stick to the ones in the following graph.) However you still might use other more precise formula (like 3^n, n^3, ...) but more than that can be sometimes misleading! So better to keep it as simple as possible.
I would like to emphasize once again that here we don't want to get an exact formula for our algorithm. We only want to show how it grows when the inputs are growing and compare with the other algorithms in that sense. Otherwise you would better use different methods like bench-marking.
In addition to using the master method (or one of its specializations), I test my algorithms experimentally. This can't prove that any particular complexity class is achieved, but it can provide reassurance that the mathematical analysis is appropriate. To help with this reassurance, I use code coverage tools in conjunction with my experiments, to ensure that I'm exercising all the cases.
As a very simple example say you wanted to do a sanity check on the speed of the .NET framework's list sort. You could write something like the following, then analyze the results in Excel to make sure they did not exceed an n*log(n) curve.
In this example I measure the number of comparisons, but it's also prudent to examine the actual time required for each sample size. However then you must be even more careful that you are just measuring the algorithm and not including artifacts from your test infrastructure.
int nCmp = 0;
System.Random rnd = new System.Random();
// measure the time required to sort a list of n integers
void DoTest(int n)
{
List<int> lst = new List<int>(n);
for( int i=0; i<n; i++ )
lst[i] = rnd.Next(0,1000);
// as we sort, keep track of the number of comparisons performed!
nCmp = 0;
lst.Sort( delegate( int a, int b ) { nCmp++; return (a<b)?-1:((a>b)?1:0)); }
System.Console.Writeline( "{0},{1}", n, nCmp );
}
// Perform measurement for a variety of sample sizes.
// It would be prudent to check multiple random samples of each size, but this is OK for a quick sanity check
for( int n = 0; n<1000; n++ )
DoTest(n);
Don't forget to also allow for space complexities that can also be a cause for concern if one has limited memory resources. So for example you may hear someone wanting a constant space algorithm which is basically a way of saying that the amount of space taken by the algorithm doesn't depend on any factors inside the code.
Sometimes the complexity can come from how many times is something called, how often is a loop executed, how often is memory allocated, and so on is another part to answer this question.
Lastly, big O can be used for worst case, best case, and amortization cases where generally it is the worst case that is used for describing how bad an algorithm may be.
First of all, the accepted answer is trying to explain nice fancy stuff,
but I think, intentionally complicating Big-Oh is not the solution,
which programmers (or at least, people like me) search for.
Big Oh (in short)
function f(text) {
var n = text.length;
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
f(text.slice(0, n-1))
}
// ... other JS logic here, which we can ignore ...
}
Big Oh of above is f(n) = O(n!) where n represents number of items in input set,
and f represents operation done per item.
Big-Oh notation is the asymptotic upper-bound of the complexity of an algorithm.
In programming: The assumed worst-case time taken,
or assumed maximum repeat count of logic, for size of the input.
Calculation
Keep in mind (from above meaning) that; We just need worst-case time and/or maximum repeat count affected by N (size of input),
Then take another look at (accepted answer's) example:
for (i = 0; i < 2*n; i += 2) { // line 123
for (j=n; j > i; j--) { // line 124
foo(); // line 125
}
}
Begin with this search-pattern:
Find first line that N caused repeat behavior,
Or caused increase of logic executed,
But constant or not, ignore anything before that line.
Seems line hundred-twenty-three is what we are searching ;-)
On first sight, line seems to have 2*n max-looping.
But looking again, we see i += 2 (and that half is skipped).
So, max repeat is simply n, write it down, like f(n) = O( n but don't close parenthesis yet.
Repeat search till method's end, and find next line matching our search-pattern, here that's line 124
Which is tricky, because strange condition, and reverse looping.
But after remembering that we just need to consider maximum repeat count (or worst-case time taken).
It's as easy as saying "Reverse-Loop j starts with j=n, am I right? yes, n seems to be maximum possible repeat count", so:
Add n to previous write down's end,
but like "( n " instead of "+ n" (as this is inside previous loop),
and close parenthesis only if we find something outside of previous loop.
Search Done! why? because line 125 (or any other line after) does not match our search-pattern.
We can now close any parenthesis (left-open in our write down), resulting in below:
f(n) = O( n( n ) )
Try to further shorten "n( n )" part, like:
n( n ) = n * n
= n2
Finally, just wrap it with Big Oh notation, like O(n2) or O(n^2) without formatting.
What often gets overlooked is the expected behavior of your algorithms. It doesn't change the Big-O of your algorithm, but it does relate to the statement "premature optimization. . .."
Expected behavior of your algorithm is -- very dumbed down -- how fast you can expect your algorithm to work on data you're most likely to see.
For instance, if you're searching for a value in a list, it's O(n), but if you know that most lists you see have your value up front, typical behavior of your algorithm is faster.
To really nail it down, you need to be able to describe the probability distribution of your "input space" (if you need to sort a list, how often is that list already going to be sorted? how often is it totally reversed? how often is it mostly sorted?) It's not always feasible that you know that, but sometimes you do.
great question!
Disclaimer: this answer contains false statements see the comments below.
If you're using the Big O, you're talking about the worse case (more on what that means later). Additionally, there is capital theta for average case and a big omega for best case.
Check out this site for a lovely formal definition of Big O: https://xlinux.nist.gov/dads/HTML/bigOnotation.html
f(n) = O(g(n)) means there are positive constants c and k, such that 0 ≤ f(n) ≤ cg(n) for all n ≥ k. The values of c and k must be fixed for the function f and must not depend on n.
Ok, so now what do we mean by "best-case" and "worst-case" complexities?
This is probably most clearly illustrated through examples. For example if we are using linear search to find a number in a sorted array then the worst case is when we decide to search for the last element of the array as this would take as many steps as there are items in the array. The best case would be when we search for the first element since we would be done after the first check.
The point of all these adjective-case complexities is that we're looking for a way to graph the amount of time a hypothetical program runs to completion in terms of the size of particular variables. However for many algorithms you can argue that there is not a single time for a particular size of input. Notice that this contradicts with the fundamental requirement of a function, any input should have no more than one output. So we come up with multiple functions to describe an algorithm's complexity. Now, even though searching an array of size n may take varying amounts of time depending on what you're looking for in the array and depending proportionally to n, we can create an informative description of the algorithm using best-case, average-case, and worst-case classes.
Sorry this is so poorly written and lacks much technical information. But hopefully it'll make time complexity classes easier to think about. Once you become comfortable with these it becomes a simple matter of parsing through your program and looking for things like for-loops that depend on array sizes and reasoning based on your data structures what kind of input would result in trivial cases and what input would result in worst-cases.
I don't know how to programmatically solve this, but the first thing people do is that we sample the algorithm for certain patterns in the number of operations done, say 4n^2 + 2n + 1 we have 2 rules:
If we have a sum of terms, the term with the largest growth rate is kept, with other terms omitted.
If we have a product of several factors constant factors are omitted.
If we simplify f(x), where f(x) is the formula for number of operations done, (4n^2 + 2n + 1 explained above), we obtain the big-O value [O(n^2) in this case]. But this would have to account for Lagrange interpolation in the program, which may be hard to implement. And what if the real big-O value was O(2^n), and we might have something like O(x^n), so this algorithm probably wouldn't be programmable. But if someone proves me wrong, give me the code . . . .
For code A, the outer loop will execute for n+1 times, the '1' time means the process which checks the whether i still meets the requirement. And inner loop runs n times, n-2 times.... Thus,0+2+..+(n-2)+n= (0+n)(n+1)/2= O(n²).
For code B, though inner loop wouldn't step in and execute the foo(), the inner loop will be executed for n times depend on outer loop execution time, which is O(n)