ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Multipartite priority queues
Full text PdfPdf (180 KB)
Source
ACM Transactions on Algorithms (TALG) archive
Volume 5 ,  Issue 1  (November 2008) table of contents
Article No. 14  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISSN:1549-6325
Authors
Amr Elmasry  Max-Planck Institut für Informatik, Saabrücken, Germany
Claus Jensen  University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen East, Denmark
Jyrki Katajainen  University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen East, Denmark
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 16,   Downloads (12 Months): 220,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1435375.1435389
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We introduce a framework for reducing the number of element comparisons performed in priority-queue operations. In particular, we give a priority queue which guarantees the worst-case cost of O(1) per minimum finding and insertion, and the worst-case cost of O(log n) with at most log n + O(1) element comparisons per deletion, improving the bound of 2 log n + O(1) known for binomial queues. Here, n denotes the number of elements stored in the data structure prior to the operation in question, and log n equals log2(max {2, n}). As an immediate application of the priority queue developed, we obtain a sorting algorithm that is optimally adaptive with respect to the inversion measure of disorder, and that sorts a sequence having n elements and I inversions with at most n log (I/n) + O(n) element comparisons.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
Brönnimann, H., Katajainen, J., and Morin, P. 2007. Putting your data structure on a diet. CPH STL Rep. 2007-1, Department of Computing, University of Copenhagen.
 
3
Brown, M. R. 1978. Implementation and analysis of binomial queue algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 7, 3, 298--319.
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
8
 
9
 
10
Elmasry, A. 2003a. Distribution-sensitive binomial queues. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2748. Springer, 103--113.
 
11
Elmasry, A. 2003b. Three sorting algorithms using priority queues. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2906. Springer, 209--220.
 
12
Elmasry, A. 2004. Layered heaps. In Proceedings of the 9th Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3111. Springer, 212--222.
 
13
 
14
15
 
16
17
 
18
 
19
20
 
21
Kaplan, H. and Tarjan, R. E. 1999. New heap data structures. Tech. rep. TR-597-99, Department of Computer Science, Princeton University.
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
Moffat, A. and Petersson, O. 1992. An overview of adaptive sorting. Australian Comput. J. 24, 2, 70--77.
 
27
Overmars, M. H. and van Leeuwen, J. 1981. Worst-Case optimal insertion and deletion methods for decomposable searching problems. Inf. Proc. Lett. 12, 4, 168--173.
 
28
Petersson, O. 1990. Adaptive sorting. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Lund University.
 
29
Schönhage, A., Paterson, M., and Pippenger, N. 1976. Finding the median. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 13, 2, 184--199.
 
30
31
32
 
33
Williams, J. W. J. 1964. Algorithm 232: Heapsort. Comm. ACM 7, 6, 347--348.


Collaborative Colleagues:
Amr Elmasry: colleagues
Claus Jensen: colleagues
Jyrki Katajainen: colleagues