When sorting some kinds of data, only part of the data is examined when determining the sort order. For example, in the card sorting example to the right, the cards are being sorted by their rank, and their suit is being ignored. The result is that it’s possible to have multiple different correctly sorted versions of the original list. Stable sorting algorithms choose one of these, according to the following rule: if two items compare as equal, like the two 5 cards, then their relative order will be preserved, so that if one came before the other in the input, it will also come before the other in the output.
Category Archives: Algorithms
gcd and lcm of two integers
int getGCD(int a, int b) {
return b == 0 ? a : getGCD(b, a%b);
}
int getLCM(int a, int b) {
return (a * b) / getGCD(a, b);
}
XOR swap algorithm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOR_swap_algorithm
Conventional swapping requires the use of a temporary storage variable. Using the XOR swap algorithm, however, no temporary storage is needed. The algorithm is as follows:
X := X XOR Y
Y := X XOR Y
X := X XOR Y
To understand it, think about the PLUS swap algorithm
a = a + b
b = a – b
a = a b
interpret XOR: it is a binary PLUS operation without carry.
bloom filter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter
An empty Bloom filter is a bit array of m bits, all set to 0. There must also be k different hash functions defined, each of which maps or hashes some set element to one of the m array positions with a uniform random distribution.
To add an element, feed it to each of the k hash functions to get k array positions. Set the bits at all these positions to 1.
To query for an element (test whether it is in the set), feed it to each of the k hash functions to get k array positions. If any of the bits at these positions are 0, the element is definitely not in the set – if it were, then all the bits would have been set to 1 when it was inserted. If all are 1, then either the element is in the set, or the bits have by chance been set to 1 during the insertion of other elements, resulting in a false positive. In a simple bloom filter, there is no way to distinguish between the two cases, but more advanced techniques can address this problem.
While risking false positives, Bloom filters have a strong space advantage over other data structures for representing sets, such as selfbalancing binary search trees, tries, hash tables, or simple arrays or linked lists of the entries. Most of these require storing at least the data items themselves, which can require anywhere from a small number of bits, for small integers, to an arbitrary number of bits, such as for strings (tries are an exception, since they can share storage between elements with equal prefixes). Linked structures incur an additional linear space overhead for pointers. A Bloom filter with 1% error and an optimal value of k, in contrast, requires only about 9.6 bits per element — regardless of the size of the elements. This advantage comes partly from its compactness, inherited from arrays, and partly from its probabilistic nature. The 1% falsepositive rate can be reduced by a factor of ten by adding only about 4.8 bits per element.
However, if the number of potential values is small and many of them can be in the set, the Bloom filter is easily surpassed by the deterministic bit array, which requires only one bit for each potential element. Note also that hash tables gain a space and time advantage if they begin ignoring collisions and store only whether each bucket contains an entry; in this case, they have effectively become Bloom filters with k = 1.^{[2]}
Bloom filters also have the unusual property that the time needed either to add items or to check whether an item is in the set is a fixed constant, O(k), completely independent of the number of items already in the set. No other constantspace set data structure has this property, but the average access time of sparse hash tables can make them faster in practice than some Bloom filters. In a hardware implementation, however, the Bloom filter shines because its k lookups are independent and can be parallelized.
To understand its space efficiency, it is instructive to compare the general Bloom filter with its special case when k = 1. If k = 1, then in order to keep the false positive rate sufficiently low, a small fraction of bits should be set, which means the array must be very large and contain long runs of zeros. The information content of the array relative to its size is low. The generalized Bloom filter (k greater than 1) allows many more bits to be set while still maintaining a low false positive rate; if the parameters (k and m) are chosen well, about half of the bits will be set, and these will be apparently random, minimizing redundancy and maximizing information content.
count sort
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_sort
In summary, the algorithm loops over the items, computing a histogram of the number of times each key occurs within the input collection. It then performs a prefix sum computation (a second loop, over the range of possible keys) to determine, for each key, the starting position in the output array of the items having that key. Finally, it loops over the items again, moving each item into its sorted position in the output array.^{[1]}^{[2]}^{[3]}
In pseudocode, this may be expressed as follows:
''' calculate histogram: '''
# k is the right end of keys' range
# allocate an array Count[0..k] ; THEN
# initialize each array cell to zero ; THEN
for each input item x:
increment Count[key(x)]
''' calculate starting index for each key: '''
total = 0
for i = 0, 1, ... k:
oldCount = Count[i]
Count[i] = total
total = total + oldCount
''' copy inputs into output array in order: '''
# allocate an output array Output[0..n1] ; THEN
for each input item x:
Output[Count[key(x)]] = x
increment Count[key(x)]
return Output
After the first for loop, Count[i]
stores the number of items with key equal to i
. After the second for loop, it instead stores the number of items with key less than i
, which is the same as the first index at which an item with key i
should be stored in the output array. Throughout the third loop, Count[i]
always stores the next position in the output array into which an item with key i
should be stored, so each item is moved into its correct position in the output array.^{[1]}^{[2]}^{[3]} The relative order of items with equal keys is preserved here; i.e., this is a stable sort.
Analysis
Because the algorithm uses only simple for loops, without recursion or subroutine calls, it is straightforward to analyze. The initialization of the Count array, and the second for loop which performs a prefix sum on the count array, each iterate at most k + 1 times and therefore take O(k) time. The other two for loops, and the initialization of the output array, each take O(n) time. Therefore the time for the whole algorithm is the sum of the times for these steps, O(n + k).^{[1]}^{[2]}
Because it uses arrays of length k + 1 and n, the total space usage of the algorithm is also O(n + k).^{[1]} For problem instances in which the maximum key value is significantly smaller than the number of items, counting sort can be highly spaceefficient, as the only storage it uses other than its input and output arrays is the Count array which uses space O(k).^{[5]}
Dutch national flag problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_national_flag_problem
void threeWayPartition(int data[], int size, int low, int high) { int p = 1; int q = size; for (int i = 0; i < q;) { if (data[i] == low) { swap(data[i], data[++p]); ++i; } else if (data[i] >= high) { swap(data[i], data[q]); } else { ++i; } } }
test randomness
 The frequency test, was very basic: checking to make sure that there were roughly the same number of 0s, 1s, 2s, 3s, etc.
 The serial test, did the same thing but for sequences of two digits at a time (00, 01, 02, etc.), comparing their observed frequencies with their hypothetical predictions were they equally distributed.
 The poker test, tested for certain sequences of five numbers at a time (aaaaa, aaaab, aaabb, etc.) based on hands in the game poker.
 The gap test, looked at the distances between zeroes (00 would be a distance of 0, 030 would be a distance of 1, 02250 would be a distance of 3, etc.).
 chisquare test,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson%27s_chisquared_test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisquared_distribution
If a given sequence was able to pass all of these tests within a given degree of significance (generally 5%), then it was judged to be, in their words “locally random”.
Rdix sort ( to read)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_sort
finish reading : Rails Command Line
1.7 rails runner
runner runs Ruby code in the context of Rails noninteractively. For instance:
$ rails runner "Model.long_running_method" 
You can also use the alias “r” to invoke the runner: rails r.
You can specify the environment in which the runner command should operate using the e switch.
$ rails runner e staging "Model.long_running_method"
external sort
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html
External sorting is a term for a class of sorting algorithms that can handle massive amounts of data. External sorting is required when the data being sorted do not fit into the main memory of a computing device (usually RAM) and instead they must reside in the slower external memory (usually a hard drive). External sorting typically uses a sortmerge strategy. In the sorting phase, chunks of data small enough to fit in main memory are read, sorted, and written out to a temporary file. In the merge phase, the sorted subfiles are combined into a single larger file.
External merge sort
One example of external sorting is the external merge sort algorithm, which sorts chunks that each fit in RAM, then merges the sorted chunks together.^{[1]}^{[2]} For example, for sorting 900 megabytes of data using only 100 megabytes of RAM:
 Read 100 MB of the data in main memory and sort by some conventional method, like quicksort.
 Write the sorted data to disk.
 Repeat steps 1 and 2 until all of the data is in sorted 100 MB chunks (there are 900MB / 100MB = 9 chunks), which now need to be merged into one single output file.
 Read the first 10 MB (= 100MB / (9 chunks + 1)) of each sorted chunk into input buffers in main memory and allocate the remaining 10 MB for an output buffer. (In practice, it might provide better performance to make the output buffer larger and the input buffers slightly smaller.)
 Perform a 9way merge and store the result in the output buffer. If the output buffer is full, write it to the final sorted file, and empty it. If any of the 9 input buffers gets empty, fill it with the next 10 MB of its associated 100 MB sorted chunk until no more data from the chunk is available. This is the key step that makes external merge sort work externally — because the merge algorithm only makes one pass sequentially through each of the chunks, each chunk does not have to be loaded completely; rather, sequential parts of the chunk can be loaded as needed.
Additional passes
That example shows a twopass sort: a sort pass followed by a merge pass. Note that we had one merge pass that merged all the chunks at once, rather than in regular merge sort, where we merge two chunks at each step, and take merge passes total. The reason for this is that every merge pass requires reading and writing every value in the array from and to disk once. Disk access is usually slow, and so reads and writes should be avoided as much as possible.
However, there is a tradeoff with using fewer merge passes. As the number of chunks increases, the amount of data we can read from each chunk at a time during the merge process decreases. For sorting, say, 50 GB in 100 MB of RAM, using a single merge pass isn’t efficient: the disk seeks required to fill the input buffers with data from each of the 500 chunks (we read 100MB / 501 ~ 200KB from each chunk at a time) take up most of the sort time. Using two merge passes solves the problem. Then the sorting process might look like this:
 Run the initial chunksorting pass as before.
 Run a first merge pass combining 25 chunks at a time, resulting in 20 larger sorted chunks.
 Run a second merge pass to merge the 20 larger sorted chunks.
Like inmemory sorts, efficient external sorts require O(n log n) time: exponential increases in data size require linear increases in the number of passes. If one makes liberal use of the gigabytes of RAM provided by modern computers, the logarithmic factor grows very slowly: under reasonable assumptions, one could sort at least 500 GB of data using 1 GB of main memory before a third pass became advantageous, and could sort many times that before a fourth pass became useful.^{[3]}
topological sorting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_sorting
In computer science, a topological sort (sometimes abbreviated topsort or toposort) or topological ordering of a directed graph is a linear ordering of its vertices such that for every directed edge uv from vertex u to vertex v, u comes before v in the ordering. For instance, the vertices of the graph may represent tasks to be performed, and the edges may represent constraints that one task must be performed before another; in this application, a topological ordering is just a valid sequence for the tasks. A topological ordering is possible if and only if the graph has no directed cycles, that is, if it is a directed acyclic graph (DAG). Any DAG has at least one topological ordering, and algorithms are known for constructing a topological ordering of any DAG in linear time.
Examples
The canonical application of topological sorting (topological order) is in scheduling a sequence of jobs or tasks based on their dependencies; topological sorting algorithms were first studied in the early 1960s in the context of the PERT technique for scheduling in project management (Jarnagin 1960). The jobs are represented by vertices, and there is an edge from x to y if job x must be completed before job y can be started (for example, when washing clothes, the washing machine must finish before we put the clothes to dry). Then, a topological sort gives an order in which to perform the jobs.
In computer science, applications of this type arise in instruction scheduling, ordering of formula cell evaluation when recomputing formula values in spreadsheets, logic synthesis, determining the order of compilation tasks to perform in makefiles, data serialization, and resolving symbol dependencies in linkers.
The graph shown to the left has many valid topological sorts, including:

Algorithms
The usual algorithms for topological sorting have running time linear in the number of nodes plus the number of edges ().
One of these algorithms, first described by Kahn (1962), works by choosing vertices in the same order as the eventual topological sort. First, find a list of “start nodes” which have no incoming edges and insert them into a set S; at least one such node must exist in an acyclic graph. Then:
L ← Empty list that will contain the sorted elements S ← Set of all nodes with no incoming edges while S is nonempty do remove a node n from S insert n into L for each node m with an edge e from n to m do remove edge e from the graph if m has no other incoming edges then insert m into S if graph has edges then return error (graph has at least one cycle) else return L (a topologically sorted order)
If the graph is a DAG, a solution will be contained in the list L (the solution is not necessarily unique). Otherwise, the graph must have at least one cycle and therefore a topological sorting is impossible.
Note that, reflecting the nonuniqueness of the resulting sort, the structure S can be simply a set or a queue or a stack. Depending on the order that nodes n are removed from set S, a different solution is created. A variation of Kahn’s algorithm that breaks ties lexicographically forms a key component of the Coffman–Graham algorithm for parallel scheduling and layered graph drawing.
An alternative algorithm for topological sorting is based on depthfirst search. For this algorithm, edges point in the opposite direction as the previous algorithm (and the opposite direction to that shown in the diagram in the Examples section above). There is an edge from x to y if job x depends on job y (in other words, if job y must be completed before job x can be started). The algorithm loops through each node of the graph, in an arbitrary order, initiating a depthfirst search that terminates when it hits any node that has already been visited since the beginning of the topological sort:
L ← Empty list that will contain the sorted nodes while there are unmarked nodes do select an unmarked node n visit(n) function visit(node n) if n has a temporary mark then stop (not a DAG) if n is not marked (i.e. has not been visited yet) then mark n temporarily for each node m with an edge from n to m do visit(m) mark n permanently add n to head of L
Note that each node n gets added to the output list L only after considering all other nodes on which n depends (all descendant nodes of n in the graph). Specifically, when the algorithm adds node n, we are guaranteed that all nodes on which n depends are already in the output list L: they were added to L either by the preceding recursive call to visit(), or by an earlier call to visit(). Since each edge and node is visited once, the algorithm runs in linear time. This depthfirstsearchbased algorithm is the one described by Cormen et al. (2001); it seems to have been first described in print by Tarjan (1976).