Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
Groups > comp.programming > #1269
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Heapsort Complexity Analysis |
| Followup-To | comp.lang.c |
| Date | 2012-01-25 00:59 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20120124163822.954@kylheku.com> (permalink) |
| References | <j5rmja$6nj$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Followups directed to: comp.lang.c
On 2011-09-27, Gr <g@g.com> wrote: > Heapsort worst case complexity is obviously nLogN. > However, what's the best case complexity? You know how to connect to an NNTP server, but not use Google? What institution let you roam out into the streets? :) Millions of people successfully Google every day who have never heard of Usenet. The Wikipedia page on Heapsort has the following table: Class Sorting algorithm Data structure Array Worst case performance O(n log n) Best case performance Ω(n),O(n log n)[1] Average case performance O(n log n) Worst case space complexity O(n) total, O(1) auxiliary This is wrong. Or rather, the omega(n) lower bound, while technically true, is not tight enough to be the useful answer. Yes, it's obvious that heapsort works no *faster* than omega(n). A citation is given: [1] pointing to "The Analysis of Heapsort", by R. Schaffer and R. Sedgewick. This text is not available for free, but from what is stated in the abstract, it is obvious that the paper gives a tighter analysis. Furthermore, there is this StackOverflow posting by someone summarizing the main arguments from the paper: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4589988/lower-bound-on-heapsort It looks as though heap sort is theta(n log n). I.e. it has no better or worse behavior for any inputs. All courtesy of using search engines. Before you go, let's burp you, too, and change your diaper!
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Heapsort Complexity Analysis Gr <g@g.com> - 2011-09-27 10:52 +0530
Re: Heapsort Complexity Analysis Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-27 07:14 +0000
Re: Heapsort Complexity Analysis Gene <gene.ressler@gmail.com> - 2011-09-27 02:45 -0700
Re: Heapsort Complexity Analysis Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-09-27 04:11 -0700
Re: Heapsort Complexity Analysis Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 13:01 +0100
Re: Heapsort Complexity Analysis Gene <gene.ressler@gmail.com> - 2011-09-27 05:53 -0700
Re: Heapsort Complexity Analysis Gr <g@g.com> - 2011-09-28 01:33 +0530
Re: Heapsort Complexity Analysis "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 16:35 -0700
Re: Heapsort Complexity Analysis pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-09-27 21:08 -0400
Re: Heapsort Complexity Analysis Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-25 00:59 +0000
Re: Heapsort Complexity Analysis "Ant" <not@home.today> - 2012-01-25 01:23 +0000
csiph-web