Comp 122, Spring 2004

Keys into Buckets:

Lower bounds, Linear-time sort, & Hashing
linsort - 2
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Comparison-based Sorting
Comparison sort
Only comparison of pairs of elements may be used to gain
order information about a sequence.
Hence, a lower bound on the number of comparisons will be a
lower bound on the complexity of any comparison-based
sorting algorithm.
All our sorts have been comparison sorts
The best worst-case complexity so far is O(n lg n)
(merge sort and heapsort).
We prove a lower bound of O(n lg n) for any
comparison sort: merge sort and heapsort are optimal.
The idea is simple: there are n! outcomes, so we need a
tree with n! leaves, and therefore lg(n!) =

linsort - 3
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Decision Tree
For insertion sort operating on three elements.
1:2
2:3 1:3
1:3 2:3
(1,2,3)
(1,3,2) (3,1,2)
(2,1,3)
(2,3,1)
(3,2,1)
s
s
s
s
s
>
>
>
>
Contains 3! = 6 leaves.
Simply unroll all loops
for all possible inputs.
Node i:j means
compare A[i] to A[j].
Leaves show outputs;
No two paths go to
same leaf!
linsort - 4
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Decision Tree (Contd.)
Execution of sorting algorithm corresponds to tracing a
path from root to leaf.
The tree models all possible execution traces.
At each internal node, a comparison a
i
s a
j
is made.
If a
i
s a
j
, follow left subtree, else follow right subtree.
View the tree as if the algorithm splits in two at each node,
based on information it has determined up to that point.
When we come to a leaf, ordering a
t(1)
s a
t(2)
s s a
t(n)
is established.
A correct sorting algorithm must be able to produce any
permutation of its input.
Hence, each of the n! permutations must appear at one or more
of the leaves of the decision tree.

linsort - 5
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
A Lower Bound for Worst Case
Worst case no. of comparisons for a sorting
algorithm is
Length of the longest path from root to any of the
leaves in the decision tree for the algorithm.
Which is the height of its decision tree.
A lower bound on the running time of any
comparison sort is given by
A lower bound on the heights of all decision trees in
which each permutation appears as a reachable leaf.
linsort - 6
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Optimal sorting for three elements
Any sort of six elements has 5 internal nodes.
1:2
2:3 1:3
1:3 2:3
(1,2,3)
(1,3,2) (3,1,2)
(2,1,3)
(2,3,1)
(3,2,1)
s
s
s
s
s
>
>
>
>
There must be a worst-case path of length 3.
linsort - 7
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
A Lower Bound for Worst Case
Proof:
Suffices to determine the height of a decision tree.
The number of leaves is at least n! (# outputs)
The number of internal nodes n!1
The height is at least lg (n!1) = O(n lg n)
QED
Theorem 8.1:
Any comparison sort algorithm requires O(n lg n) comparisons in the
worst case.
linsort - 8
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Beating the lower bound
We can beat the lower bound if we dont base
our sort on comparisons:
Counting sort for keys in [0..k], k=O(n)
Radix sort for keys with a fixed number of digits
Bucket sort for random keys (uniformly distributed)
linsort - 9
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Counting Sort
Assumption: we sort integers in {0, 1, 2, , k}.
Input: A[1..n] c{0, 1, 2, , k}
n
.
Array A and values n and k are given.
Output: B[1..n] sorted. Assume B is already
allocated and given as a parameter.
Auxiliary Storage: C[0..k] counts
Runs in linear time if k = O(n).

linsort - 10
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Counting-Sort (A, B, k)
CountingSort(A, B, k)
1. for i 1 to k
2. do C[i] 0
3. for j 1 to length[A]
4. do C[A[j]] C[A[j]] + 1
5. for i 2 to k
6. do C[i] C[i] + C[i 1]
7. for j length[A] downto 1
8. do B[C[A[ j ]]] A[j]
9. C[A[j]] C[A[j]]1

O(k) init counts
O(k) prefix sum
O(n) count
O(n) reorder
linsort - 11
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Radix Sort

Used to sort on card-sorters:
Do a stable sort on each column,
one column at a time.
The human operator is
part of the algorithm!


Key idea: sort on the least significant digit first and
on the remaining digits in sequential order. The sorting
method used to sort each digit must be stable.
If we start with the most significant digit, well
need extra storage.
linsort - 12
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
An Example
392 631 928 356
356 392 631 392
446 532 532 446
928 495 446 495
631 356 356 532
532 446 392 631
495 928 495 928
| | |
Input
After sorting
on LSD
After sorting
on middle
digit
After sorting
on MSD
linsort - 13
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Radix-Sort(A, d)
Correctness of Radix Sort
By induction on the number of digits sorted.
Assume that radix sort works for d 1 digits.
Show that it works for d digits.
Radix sort of d digits radix sort of the low-order d
1 digits followed by a sort on digit d .
RadixSort(A, d)
1. for i 1 to d
2. do use a stable sort to sort array A on digit i
linsort - 14
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Algorithm Analysis
Each pass over n d-digit numbers then takes time
O(n+k). (Assuming counting sort is used for each pass.)

There are d passes, so the total time for radix sort is
O(d (n+k)).

When d is a constant and k = O(n), radix sort runs in
linear time.

Radix sort, if uses counting sort as the intermediate
stable sort, does not sort in place.
If primary memory storage is an issue, quicksort or other sorting methods
may be preferable.
linsort - 15
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Bucket Sort
Assumes input is generated by a random process
that distributes the elements uniformly over [0, 1).
Idea:
Divide [0, 1) into n equal-sized buckets.
Distribute the n input values into the buckets.
Sort each bucket.
Then go through the buckets in order, listing elements
in each one.

linsort - 16
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
An Example
linsort - 17
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Bucket-Sort (A)
BucketSort(A)
1. n length[A]
2. for i 1 to n
3. do insert A[i] into list B[ nA[i] ]
4. for i 0 to n 1
5. do sort list B[i] with insertion sort
6. concatenate the lists B[i]s together in order
7. return the concatenated lists
Input: A[1..n], where 0 s A[i] < 1 for all i.
Auxiliary array: B[0..n 1] of linked lists, each list initially empty.
linsort - 18
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Analysis
Relies on no bucket getting too many values.
All lines except insertion sorting in line 5 take O(n)
altogether.
Intuitively, if each bucket gets a constant number of
elements, it takes O(1) time to sort each bucket O(n)
sort time for all buckets.
We expect each bucket to have few elements, since
the average is 1 element per bucket.
But we need to do a careful analysis.
linsort - 19
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Analysis Contd.
RV n
i
= no. of elements placed in bucket B[i].
Insertion sort runs in quadratic time. Hence, time for
bucket sort is:

=
= + O =
+ O =
(

+ O =
+ O =
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
) ] [ ] [ ( ]) [ ( ) (
n) expectatio of linearity (by )] ( [ ) (
) ( ) ( )] ( [
have we n, expectatio
of linearity using and sides both of ns expectatio Taking
) ( ) ( ) (
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
X aE aX E n E O n
n O E n
n O n E n T E
n O n n T
(8.1)
linsort - 20
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Analysis Contd.
Claim: E[n
i
2
] = 2 1/n.
Proof:
Define indicator random variables.
X
ij
= I{A[j] falls in bucket i}
Pr{A[j] falls in bucket i} = 1/n.

n
i
=

=
n
j
ij
X
1
(8.2)
linsort - 21
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Analysis Contd.

s s
=
s s =
= s s
=
s s
= =
=
+ =
(
(

+ =
(

=
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
n j
k j
n k
ik ij
n
j
ij
n
j n j
k j
n k
ik ij ij
ik
n
j
n
k
ij
n
j
ij i
X X E X E
X X X
X X E
X E n E
1 1 1
2
1 1 1
2
1 1
2
1
2
n. expectatio of linearity by , ] [ ] [
E

] [
(8.3)
linsort - 22
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Analysis Contd.
2
2
2 2
1

1 1

] [ ] [ ] [
variables.
random t independen are and , Since
: for ] [
1

1
1
1
1 0
} bucket in falls ] [ Pr{ 1
} bucket in fall t doesn' ] [ Pr{ 0 ] [
n n n
X E X E X X E
X X k j
k j X X E
n
n n
i j A
i j A X E
ik ij ik ij
ik ij
ik ij
ij
= =
=
=
=
=
+
|
.
|

\
|
=

+ =
linsort - 23
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Analysis Contd.
) (
) ( ) (
) / 1 2 ( ) ( )] ( [
.
1
2
1
1
1
) 1 (
1

1 1
] [
1
0
2
1 1 1
2
2
n
n O n
n O n n T E
n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
n n
n E
n
i
n
j n j
j k
n k
i
O =
+ O =
+ O =
=

+ =
+ =
+ =

=
= s s
=
s s
Substituting (8.2) in (8.1), we have,
(8.3) is hence,
Comp 122, Spring 2004
Hash Tables 1
linsort - 25
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Dictionary
Dictionary:
Dynamic-set data structure for storing items indexed
using keys.
Supports operations Insert, Search, and Delete.
Applications:
Symbol table of a compiler.
Memory-management tables in operating systems.
Large-scale distributed systems.
Hash Tables:
Effective way of implementing dictionaries.
Generalization of ordinary arrays.
linsort - 26
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Direct-address Tables
Direct-address Tables are ordinary arrays.
Facilitate direct addressing.
Element whose key is k is obtained by indexing into
the k
th
position of the array.
Applicable when we can afford to allocate an array
with one position for every possible key.
i.e. when the universe of keys U is small.
Dictionary operations can be implemented to take
O(1) time.
Details in Sec. 11.1.
linsort - 27
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Hash Tables
Notation:
U Universe of all possible keys.
K Set of keys actually stored in the dictionary.
|K| = n.
When U is very large,
Arrays are not practical.
|K| << |U|.
Use a table of size proportional to |K| The hash tables.
However, we lose the direct-addressing ability.
Define functions that map keys to slots of the hash table.


linsort - 28
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Hashing
Hash function h: Mapping from U to the slots of a
hash table T[0..m1].
h : U {0,1,, m1}
With arrays, key k maps to slot A[k].
With hash tables, key k maps or hashes to slot
T[h[k]].
h[k] is the hash value of key k.
linsort - 29
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Hashing
0
m1
h(k
1
)
h(k
4
)
h(k
2
)=h(k
5
)
h(k
3
)
U
(universe of keys)
K
(actual
keys)
k
1
k
2
k
3
k
5
k
4
collision
linsort - 30
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Issues with Hashing
Multiple keys can hash to the same slot
collisions are possible.
Design hash functions such that collisions are
minimized.
But avoiding collisions is impossible.
Design collision-resolution techniques.
Search will cost (n) time in the worst case.
However, all operations can be made to have an
expected complexity of (1).
linsort - 31
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Methods of Resolution
Chaining:
Store all elements that hash to the same
slot in a linked list.
Store a pointer to the head of the linked
list in the hash table slot.
Open Addressing:
All elements stored in hash table itself.
When collisions occur, use a systematic
(consistent) procedure to store elements
in free slots of the table.
k
2
0
m1
k
1
k
4
k
5
k
6
k
7
k
3
k
8
linsort - 32
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Collision Resolution by Chaining
0
m1
h(k
1
)=h(k
4
)
h(k
2
)=h(k
5
)=h(k
6
)
h(k
3
)=h(k
7
)
U
(universe of keys)
K
(actual
keys)
k
1
k
2
k
3
k
5
k
4
k
6
k
7
k
8
h(k
8
)
X
X
X
linsort - 33
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
k
2
Collision Resolution by Chaining
0
m1
U
(universe of keys)
K
(actual
keys)
k
1
k
2
k
3
k
5
k
4
k
6
k
7
k
8
k
1
k
4
k
5
k
6
k
7
k
3
k
8
linsort - 34
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Hashing with Chaining
Dictionary Operations:
Chained-Hash-Insert (T, x)
Insert x at the head of list T[h(key[x])].
Worst-case complexity O(1).
Chained-Hash-Delete (T, x)
Delete x from the list T[h(key[x])].
Worst-case complexity proportional to length of list with
singly-linked lists. O(1) with doubly-linked lists.
Chained-Hash-Search (T, k)
Search an element with key k in list T[h(k)].
Worst-case complexity proportional to length of list.

linsort - 35
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Analysis on Chained-Hash-Search
Load factor o=n/m = average keys per slot.
m number of slots.
n number of elements stored in the hash table.
Worst-case complexity: O(n) + time to compute h(k).

Average depends on how h distributes keys among m slots.
Assume
Simple uniform hashing.
Any key is equally likely to hash into any of the m slots,
independent of where any other key hashes to.
O(1) time to compute h(k).
Time to search for an element with key k is O(|T[h(k)]|).
Expected length of a linked list = load factor = o = n/m.
linsort - 36
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Expected Cost of an Unsuccessful Search
Proof:
Any key not already in the table is equally likely to hash
to any of the m slots.
To search unsuccessfully for any key k, need to search to
the end of the list T[h(k)], whose expected length is .
Adding the time to compute the hash function, the total
time required is (1+).

Theorem:
An unsuccessful search takes expected time (1+).
linsort - 37
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Expected Cost of a Successful Search
Proof:
The probability that a list is searched is proportional to the number
of elements it contains.
Assume that the element being searched for is equally likely to be
any of the n elements in the table.
The number of elements examined during a successful search for
an element x is 1 more than the number of elements that appear
before x in xs list.
These are the elements inserted after x was inserted.
Goal:
Find the average, over the n elements x in the table, of how many elements
were inserted into xs list after x was inserted.


Theorem:
A successful search takes expected time (1+).
linsort - 38
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Expected Cost of a Successful Search
Proof (contd):
Let x
i
be the i
th
element inserted into the table, and let k
i
= key[x
i
].
Define indicator random variables X
ij
= I{h(k
i
) = h(k
j
)}, for all i, j.
Simple uniform hashing Pr{h(k
i
) = h(k
j
)} = 1/m
E[X
ij
] = 1/m.
Expected number of elements examined in a successful search is:
Theorem:
A successful search takes expected time (1+).
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+

= + =
n
i
n
i j
ij
X
n
E
1 1
1
1
No. of elements inserted after x
i
into the same slot as x
i
.
linsort - 39
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Proof Contd.
n
m
n
n n
n
nm
i n
nm
i n
nm
m n
X E
n
X
n
E
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
i j
n
i
n
i j
ij
n
i
n
i j
ij
2 2
1
2
1
1
2
) 1 ( 1
1
1
1
) (
1
1
1
1
1
] [ 1
1
1
1
2
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
o o
+ =

+ =
|
.
|

\
|
+
+ =
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
+ =
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+

= =
=
= + =
= + =
= + =
(linearity of expectation)
Expected total time for a successful search
= Time to compute hash function + Time
to search
= O(2+o/2 o/2n) = O(1+ o).
linsort - 40
Lin / Devi
Comp 122
Expected Cost Interpretation
If n = O(m), then o=n/m = O(m)/m = O(1).
Searching takes constant time on average.
Insertion is O(1) in the worst case.
Deletion takes O(1) worst-case time when lists are doubly
linked.
Hence, all dictionary operations take O(1) time on
average with hash tables with chaining.