What’s the fastest way to sort the following sequence [9, 3, 0, 5, 4, 1, 2, 6, 8, 7]? Well, the question is a bit tricky since the input is somehow “predefined”. First of all we have only integers, and fortunately they are all different. That’s great and we know that in practice it’s almost impossible to count on such lucky coincidence. However here we can sort the sequence very quickly.

First of all we can pass through all these integers and by using an auxiliary array we can just put them at their corresponding index. We know in advance that that is going to work really well, because they are all different.

There is only one major problem in this solution. That’s because we assume all the integers are different. If not – we can just put all them in one single corresponding index.

That is why we can use bucket sort.

Overview

Bucket sort it’s the perfect sorting algorithm for the sequence above. We must know in advance that the integers are fairly well distributed over an interval (i, j). Then we can divide this interval in N equal sub-intervals (or buckets). We’ll put each number in its corresponding bucket. Finally for every bucket that contains more than one number we’ll use some linear sorting algorithm.

The thing is that we know that the integers are well distributed, thus we expect that there won’t be many buckets with more than one number inside.

That is why the sequence [1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1] won’t be sorted faster than [4, 3, 1, 2, 9, 5, 4, 8].

Pseudo Code

1. Let n be the length of the input list L;
2. For each element i from L
   2.1. If B[i] is not empty
      2.1.1. Put A[i] into B[i] using insertion sort;
      2.1.2. Else B[i] := A[i] 
3. Concatenate B[i .. n] into one sorted list;

Complexity

The complexity of bucket sort isn’t constant depending on the input. However in the average case the complexity of the algorithm is O(n + k) where n is the length of the input sequence, while k is the number of buckets.

The problem is that its worst-case performance is O(n^2) which makes it as slow as bubble sort.

Application

As the other two linear time sorting algorithms (radix sort and counting sort) bucket sort depends so much on the input. The main thing we should be aware of is the way the input data is dispersed over an interval.

Another crucial thing is the number of buckets that can dramatically improve or worse the performance of the algorithm.

This makes bucket sort ideal in cases we know in advance that the input is well dispersed.

The first question when we see the phrase “sorting in linear time” should be – where’s the catch? Indeed there’s a catch and the thing is that we can’t sort just anything in linear time. Most of the time we can speak on sorting integers in linear time, but as we can see later this is not the only case.

Since we speak about integers, we can think of a faster sorting algorithm than usual. Such an algorithm is the counting sort, which can be very fast in some cases, but also very slow in others, so it can be used carefully. Another linear time sorting algorithm is radix sort.

Introduction

Count sort is absolutely brilliant and easy to implement. In case we sort integers in the range [n, m] on the first pass we just initialize a zero filled array with length m-n. Than on the second pass we “count” the occurrence of each integer. On the third pass we just sort the integers with an ease.

However we have some problems with that algorithm. What if we have only few items to sort that are very far from each other like [2, 1, 10000000, 2]. This will result in a very large unused data. So we need a dense integer sequence. This is important because we must know in advance the nature of the sequence which is rarely sure.

That’s why we need to use another linear time sorting algorithm for integers that doesn’t have this disadvantage. Such an algorithm is the radix sort.

Overview

The idea behind the radix sort is simple. We must look at our “integer” sequence as a string sequence. OK, to become clearer let me give you an example. Our sequence is [12, 2, 23, 33, 22]. First we take the leftmost digit of each number. Thus we must compare [_2, 2, _3, _3, _2]. Clearly we can assume that since the second number “2” is only a one digit number we can fill it up with a leading “0”, to become 02 or _2 in our example: [_2, _2, _3, _3, _2]. Now we sort this sequence with a stable sort algorithm.

What is a Stable Sort Algorithm

A stable sort algorithm is an algorithm that sorts a list by preserving the positions of the elements in case they are equal. In terms of PHP this means that:

array(0 => 12, 1=> 13, 2 => 12); 

Will be sorted as follows:

array(0 => 12, 2 => 12, 1 => 13);

Thus the third element becomes second following the first element. Note that the third and the first element are equal, but the third appears later in the sequence so it remains later in the sorted sequence.

In the radix sort example, we need a stable sort algorithm, because we need to worry about only one position of digit we explore.

So what happens in our example after we sort the sequence?

As we can see we’re far from a sorted sequence, but what if we proceed with the next “position” – the decimal digit?

Than we end up with this:

Now we have a sorted sequence, so let’s summarize the algorithm in a short pseudo code.

Pseudo Code

The simple approach behind the radix sort algorithm can be described as pseudo code, assuming that we’re sorting decimal integers.

1. For each digit at position 10^0 to 10^n
1.1. Sort the numbers by this digit using a stable sort algorithm;

The thing is that here we talk about decimal, but actually this algorithm can be applied equally on any numeric systems. That is why it’s called “radix” sort.

Thus we can sort binary numbers, hexadecimals etc.

It’s important to note that this algorithm can be also used to sort strings alphabetically.

[ABC, BBC, ABA, AC]
[__C, __C, __A, __C] => [ABA, ABC, BBC, AC]
[_B_, _B_, _B_, _A_] => [AC, ABA, ABC, BBC]
[___, A__, A__, B__] => [AC, ABA, ABC, BBC]

That is simply correct because we can assume that our alphabet is another 27 digit numeric system (in case of the Latin alphabet).

Complexity

As I said in the beginning radix sort is a linear time sorting algorithm. Let’s see why. First we depend on the numeric system. Let’s assume we have a decimal numeric system – then we have N passes sorting 10 digits which is simply 10*N. In case of K digit numeric system our algorithm will be O(K*N) which is linear.

However you must note that in case we sort N numbers in an N digit numeric system the complexity will become O(N^2)!

We must also remember that in order to implement radix sort and a supporting stable sort algorithm we need an extra space.

Application

Sorting integers can be faster than sorting just anything, so any time we need to implement a sorting algorithm we must carefully investigate the input data. And that’s also the big disadvantage of this algorithm – we must know the input in advance, which is rarely the case.

To find the minimum value into an array of items itsn’t difficult. There are not many options to do that. The most natural approach is to take the first item and to compare its value against the values of all other elements. Once we find a smaller element we continue the comparisons with its value. Finally we find the minimum.

First thing to note is that we pass through the array with n steps and we need exactly n-1 comparisons. It’s clear that this is the optimal solution, because we must check all the elements. For sure we can’t be sure that we’ve found the minimum (maximum) value without checking every single value.

Overview

The algorithm above is very simple and we’re sure that it is optimal. Obviously finding both the minimum and the maximum value is O(n) with n-1 comparisons, but what about combining these tasks into one single pass.

Since they both are O(n) and need n-1 comparisons it’s natural to think that combining the two tasks will be O(n) and 2n – 2 comparisons. However we can reduce the number of comparisons!

Instead of taking only one item from the array and comparing it against the minimum and maximum we can take a pair of items at each step. Thus we can first compare them and then compare the smaller value with the currently smallest value and the greater item with the currently greatest value. This will make only 3 comparisons instead of 4.

Implementation

It’s easy to implement the minimum (maximum) algorithms with a single loop.

The implementation of finding the maximum is practically the same.

Simply merging these two functions will lead us to a O(n) with 2n – 2 comparisons solution.

However we can take a pair of items on each step. First we’ll compare the items from that pair and after that we’ll compare them respectively with the minimum and the maximum value. Because on each iteration we jump by two items, in case the number of array items is even we must check for the array boundaries. This can be overcome by adding a sentinel. Thus the array items are always odd, but this will lead us to a “extra” memory solution.

Sentinel

Without sentinel

Complexity

The complexity of finding both minimum and maximum is O(n). Even after combining the both algorithms in one single pass the complexity remains O(n). However in the second case we can reduce the number of comparisons to 3 * ceil(n/2) instead of 2n – 2!

Application

This algorithm can be applied in various fields of the computer science, since its nature is so basic. However there are two reasons why this approach is so important.

First we can see how by combining two “algorithms” doesn’t mean that we combine their complexities or the number of operations. With a clever trick and with the observation that the two operations are related (minimum and maximum) we can reduce the number of comparisons.

In the other hand we see how using a sentinel can be very handy and can spare us some comparisons, just like the sequential search.