In a graph algorithm, I need to find the node with the smallest value.
In a step of the algorithm the value of this node or its neighbors can be decreased and a few of its neightbors can be removed dependent on their value.
Also, I don't want to search the whole graph for this node each time (although it is not so big (<1000 nodes)).
Therefore I looked at the STL library and found the heap structure which almost does what I want. I can insert and delete nodes very fast, but is there a method to update the heap fast when I only changed the value of one node without resorting the whole heap? I feel it would be a huge bottleneck in the program.
First the conceptual part:
If you use the heap insertion method with the element that decreased it's value as the starting point for insertion instead of starting at the back of the collection everything just works.
I haven't done that in C++ yet, but std::push_heap looks fine for that purpose.
Related
I am designing a Graph in c++ using a hash table for its elements. The hashtable is using open addressing and the Graph has no more than 50.000 edges. I also designed a PRIM algorithm to find the minimum spanning tree of the graph. My PRIM algorithm creates storage for the following data:
A table named Q to put there all the nodes in the beginning. In every loop, a node is visited and in the end of the loop, it's deleted from Q.
A table named Key, one for each node. The key is changed when necessary (at least one time per loop).
A table named Parent, one for each node. In each loop, a new element is inserted in this table.
A table named A. The program stores here the final edges of the minimum spanning tree. It's the table that is returned.
What would be the most efficient data structure to use for creating these tables, assuming the graph has 50.000 edges?
Can I use arrays?
I fear that the elements for every array will be way too many. I don't even consider using linked lists, of course, because the accessing of each element will take to much time. Could I use hash tables?
But again, the elements are way to many. My algorithm works well for Graphs consisting of a few nodes (10 or 20) but I am sceptical about the situation where the Graphs consist of 40.000 nodes. Any suggestion is much appreciated.
(Since comments were getting a bit long): The only part of the problem that seems to get ugly for very large size, is that every node not yet selected has a cost and you need to find the one with lowest cost at each step, but executing each step reduces the cost of a few effectively random nodes.
A priority queue is perfect when you want to keep track of lowest cost. It is efficient for removing the lowest cost node (which you do at each step). It is efficient for adding a few newly reachable nodes, as you might on any step. But in the basic design, it does not handle reducing the cost of a few nodes that were already reachable at high cost.
So (having frequent need for a more functional priority queue), I typically create a heap of pointers to objects and in each object have an index of its heap position. The heap methods all do a callback into the object to inform it whenever its index changes. The heap also has some external calls into methods that might normally be internal only, such as the one that is perfect for efficiently fixing the heap when an existing element has its cost reduced.
I just reviewed the documentation for the std one
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/priority_queue
to see if the features I always want to add were there in some form I hadn't noticed before (or had been added in some recent C++ version). So far as I can tell, NO. Most real world uses of priority queue (certainly all of mine) need minor extra features that I have no clue how to tack onto the standard version. So I have needed to rewrite it from scratch including the extra features. But that isn't actually hard.
The method I use has been reinvented by many people (I was doing this in C in the 70's, and wasn't first). A quick google search found one of many places my approach is described in more detail than I have described it.
http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~chvatal/notes/pq.html#heap
I'm prepping for a Google developer interview and have gotten stuck on a question about heaps. I need to implement a heap as a dynamic binary tree (not array) where each node has a pointer to the parent and two children and there is a global pointer to the root node. The book asks "why won't this be enough?"
How can the standard tree implementation be extended to support heap operations add() and deleteMin()? How can these operations be implemented in this data structure?
Can you keep the size of total nodes ? if so, it's easy to know where you should add new element, because that's an almost full tree.
About deleteMin, I think that it will be less effective because you can't access directly to all leaves, as in array (N/2).
You should travel through all paths till you get leaf and then compare them, probably it will cost O(n)
I am using STL priority_queue as an data structure in my graph application. You can safely assume it like a advance version of Prim's spanning tree algorithm.
With in the Algorithm I want to find a node in the priority queue (not just a minimum node) efficiently.[ this is needed because cost of node might get changed and need to be fixed in priority_queue]
All i have to do is augment the priority_queue and index it based on my node key's also. I don't find any way this can be done in STL. Can anyone have better idea how to do it in STL?
The std::priority_queue<T> doesn't support efficient look-up of nodes: it uses a d-ary heap, typically with d == 2. This representation doesn't keep nodes put. If you really want to use a std::priority_queue<T> with Prim's algorithm, the only way is to just add nodes with their current shortest distance and possibly add each node multiple times. This turns the size of the into O(E) instead of O(N), though, i.e., for graphs with many edges it will result in a much higher complexity.
You can use something like std::map<...> but that really suffers from pretty much the same problem: you can either locate the next node to extract efficiently or you can locate the nodes to update efficiently.
The "proper" approach is to use a node-based priority queue, e.g., a Fibanocci-heap: Since the nodes stay put, you can get a handle from the heap when inserting a node and efficiently update the distance of a node through the handle. Access to the closest node is efficient using the few top nodes in the heap's set of trees. The overall performance of basic heap operations (push(), top(), and pop()) are slower for Fibonacci heaps than for d-ary heaps but the efficient update of individual nodes makes their use worthwhile. I seem to recall that Prim's algorithm actually required Fibonacci-heaps anyway to achieve the tight complexity bound.
I know that there is an implementation of Fibonacci-heaps at Boost. An efficient implementation of Fibonacci heaps isn't entirely trivial but they are more efficient than just being of theoretical interest.
In a graph class I need to handle nodes with integer values (1-1000 mostly). In every step I want to remove a node and all its neighbors from the graph. Also I want to always begin with the node of the minimal value. I thought long about how to do this in the fastest possible manner and decided to do the following:
The graph is stored using adjancency lists
There is a huge array std::vector<Node*> bucket[1000] to store the nodes by its value
The index of the lowest nonempty bucket is always stored and kept track off
I can find the node of minimal value very fast by picking a random element of that index or if the bucket is already empty increase the index
Removing the selected node from the bucket can clearly done in O(1), the problem is that for removing the neighbors I need to search the bucket bucket[value of neighbor] first for all neighbor nodes, which is not really fast.
Is there a more efficient approach to this?
I thought of using something like std::list<Node*> bucket[1000], and assign every node a pointer to its "list element", such that I can remove the node from the list in O(1). Is this possible with stl lists, clearly it can be done with a normal double linked list that I could implement by hand?
I recently did something similar to this for a priority queue implementation using buckets.
What I did was use a hash tables (unordered_map), that way, you don't need to store 1000 empty vectors and you still get O(1) random access (general case, not guaranteed). Now, if you only need to store/create this graph class one time, it probably doesn't matter. In my case I needed to create the priority queue tens/hundreds of time per second and using the hash map made a huge difference (due to the fact that I only created unordered_sets when I actually had an element of that priority, so no need to initialize 1000 empty hash sets). Hash sets and maps are new in C++11, but have been available in std::tr1 for a while now, or you could use the Boost libraries.
The only difference that I can see between your & my usecase, is that you also need to be able to remove neighboring nodes. I'm assuming every node contains a list of pointers to it's neighbors. If so, deletion of the neighbors should take k * O(1) with k the number of neighbors (again, O(1) in general, not guaranteed, worst case is O(n) in an unordered_map/set). You just go over every neighboring node, get its priority, that gives you the correct index into the hash map. Then you find the pointer in the hash set which the priority maps to, this search in general will be O(1) and removing the element is again O(1) in general.
All in all, I think you got a pretty good idea of what to do, but I believe that using hash maps/sets will speed up your code by quite a lot (depends on the exact usage of course). For me, the speed improvement of an implementation with unordered_map<int, unordered_set> versus vector<set> was around 50x.
Here's what I would do. Node structure:
struct Node {
std::vector<Node*>::const_iterator first_neighbor;
std::vector<Node*>::const_iterator last_neighbor;
int value;
bool deleted;
};
Concatenate the adjacency lists and put them in a single std::vector<Node*> to lower the overhead of memory management. I'm using soft deletes so update speed is not important.
Sort pointers to the nodes by value into another std::vector<Node*> with a counting sort. Mark all nodes as not deleted.
Iterate through the nodes in sorted order. If the node under consideration has been deleted, go to the next one. Otherwise, mark it deleted and iterate through its neighbors and mark them deleted.
If your nodes are stored contiguously in memory, then you can omit last_neighbor at the cost of an extra sentinel node at the end of the structure, because last_neighbor of a node is first_neighbor of the succeeding node.
Is it possible to traverse a tree structure (specifically an octree, the 3-D version of a binary tree) by using a fixed sized stack? I do not want to use recursion, since my octree is
quite deep.
I am traversing the tree to do a range search problem, to find all the points closest to a queried point. So in my traversal, I do not walk down those subtrees rooted at nodes which my search region does not intersect.
If your octree has parent pointers, I think you can traverse it without a stack at all (see this thread, for example). Without that, you will need a stack that is as deep as the depth of your tree, regardless of how many branches are skipped.
Of course you can traverse a tree without using a deep native call stack, using continuation passing style techniques, or (and this is grossly the same) by making a virtual machine, with its call stack implemented as a heap data, or (yet another point of view) by coding a stack automata with the stack implemented as an explicit heap data structure (e.g. a std::stack).
Think of it otherwise, your C++ naive code could run on a Turing machine, and these beasts don't have any stack.
As Ted Hopp's answer suggests, you might be inspired by Deutsch-Schorr-Waite's Garbage Collection techniques (with a few additional bits per node to temporarily flip the reference direction and remember that) to have a "stack-less" traversal (but you need additional bits in each node). But I believe that having your own stack inside a std::stack or std::vector is probably simpler.
Yes, you can traverse the octree with a fixed-size stack.
The fixed-size just needs to be as big as the longest possible octree depth.
Bear in mind that with an octree, each depth traversal can be recorded with only 3 bits of memory. For each of the three dimensions, you only need to record whether you went in a positive or negative direction.
So even if your octree goes 1000-deep, you can store the recursion with 375 bytes.