Might try linked list or some sort of array.
Try array implementation. Vector has two fields, array and # elts of array
currently in use.
Note distinction btn size of array and # elts in use!
When about to exceed capacity, copy elts into a larger array.
Need
efficient strategy for this.
Following is simplification from (more complex) code in structures:
public class Vector { protected Object elementData[]; // the data protected int elementCount; // # of elts in vec protected int capacityIncrement; // the rate of growth for // vector // pre: initialExtend >= 0, extentIncrement >= 0 // post: construct empty vector with initialExtent capacity // that extends capacity by extentIncrement, or doubles // if 0 public Vector(int initialExtent, int extentIncrement) { Assert.pre(initialExtent >= 0, "Non-negative vector extent."); elementData = new Object[initialExtent]; elementCount = 0; capacityIncrement = extentIncrement; }
Accessing and modifying elts trivial, adding and deleting more tricky. Method ensureCapacity(int n) ensures there is space for at least n elts in array component of vector. (Will discuss in detail later.)
// post: add new element to end of possibly extended vector public void addElement(Object obj) { ensureCapacity(elementCount+1); elementData[elementCount] = obj; elementCount++; } // pre: 0 <= index <= size() // post: inserts new value in vector with desired index // moving elements from index to size()-1 to right public void insertElementAt(Object obj, int index) { int i; ensureCapacity(elementCount+1); // Must copy from right to left to avoid destroying data for (i = elementCount; i > index; i--) elementData[i] = elementData[i-1]; // assertion: i == index and element[index] is available elementData[index] = obj; elementCount++; }
Remove similar (see code on line).
Adding or deleting an element may involve moving up to n elts, if n elts in array (slow!!).
Options:
(0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... + n = n*(n-1)/2 )
Whereas no copies need to be made if allocated space for n elts at beginning.
With second option (where assume n is power of 2 for simplicity), copy
0 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... + n/2 = n - 1 elts.
While this is overhead, extra copy of n elts, much less painful than n2/2.
Let user decide which strategy to use. If call Vector(int initialExtent) then set capacityIncrement to 0 and use doubling strategy, else always extend by capacityIncrement new elts:
// post: capacity of this vector is at least minCapacity. public void ensureCapacity(int minCapacity) { if (elementData.length < minCapacity) { // have less than needed int newLength = elementData.length; // initial guess if (capacityIncrement == 0) { // increment of 0 suggests doubling (default) if (newLength == 0) newLength = 1; while (newLength < minCapacity) newLength = newLength * 2; } else { // increment != 0 suggests incremental increase while (newLength < minCapacity) newLength = newLength + capacityIncrement; } // assertion: newLength > elementData.length. Object newElementData[] = new Object[newLength]; // copy old data to array for (int i = 0; i < elementCount; i++) newElementData[i] = elementData[i]; elementData = newElementData; // N.B. Garbage collector will pick up old elementData } // assertion: capacity is at least minCapacity }
Ignore differences which are constant - e.g., treat n and n/2 as same order of magnitude.
Similarly with 2 n2 and 1000 n2.
In general if have polynomial of the form a0 nk + a1 nk-1 + ... + ak , say it is O(nk).
Definition: We say that g(n) is O(f(n)) if there exist two constants C and k such that |g(n)| <= C |f(n)| for all n > k.
Equivalently, say g(n) is O(f(n)) if
there is a constant C such that for
all sufficiently large n, | g(n) / f(n) | <= C.
Most common are
O(1) - for any constant
O(log n), O(n), O(n log n), O(n2), ..., O(2n)
Usually use these to measure time and space complexity of algorithms.
Insertion of new first element in an array of size n is O(n) since must bump all other elts up by one place.
Insertion of new last element in an array of size n is O(1).
Saw increasing array size by 1 at a time to build up to n takes time n*(n-1)/2, which is O(n2).
Saw increasing array size to n by doubling each time takes time n-1, which is O(n).
Make table of values to show difference.
Suppose have operations with time complexity O(log n), O(n), O(n log n), O(n2), and O(2n).
And suppose all work on problem of size n in time t. How much time to do problem 10, 100, or 1000 times larger?
size | 10 n | 100 n | 1000 n |
---|---|---|---|
O(log n) | >3t | 10t | >30t |
O(n) | 10t | 100t | 1,000t |
O(n log n) | >30t | 1,000t | >30,000t |
O(n2) | 100t | 10,000t | 1,000,000t |
O(2n) | ~t10 | ~t100 | ~t1000 |
*Note that the last line depends on the fact that the constant is 1, otherwise the times are somewhat different.
Suppose get new machine that allows certain speed-up. How much larger problems can be solved? If original machine allowed solution of problem of size k in time t, then
speed-up | 1x | 10x | 100x | 1000x |
---|---|---|---|---|
O(log n) | k | k10 | k100 | k1000 |
O(n) | k | 10k | 100k | 1,000k |
O(n log n) | k | <10k | <100k | <1,000k |
O(n2) | k | 3k+ | 10k | 30k+ |
O(2n) | k | k+3 | k+7 | k+10 |
We will use big Oh notation to help us measure complexity of algorithms.
Only deal with searches here, come back to do sorts.
Code for all searches is on-line in Sort program example
If list has n elements, then n compares in worst case.
With each recursive call do at most two compares.
What is maximum number of recursive calls?
Concrete comparison of worst cases: # of comparisons:
Search\# elts | 10 | 100 | 1000 | 1,000,000 |
---|---|---|---|---|
linear | 10 | 100 | 1000 | 1,000,000 |
binary | 8 | 14 | 20 | 40 |