Algorithms always depend on the input. We saw that general purpose sorting algorithms as insertion sort, bubble sort and quicksort can be very efficient in some cases and inefficient in other. Indeed insertion and bubble sort are considered slow, with best-case complexity of O(n²), but they are quite effective when the input is fairly sorted. Thus when you have a sorted array and you add some “new” values to the array you can sort it quite effectively with insertion sort. On the other hand quicksort is considered one of the best general purpose sorting algorithms, but while it’s a great algorithm when the data is randomized it’s practically as slow as bubble sort when the input is almost or fully sorted.

Now we see that depending on the input algorithms may be effective or not. For almost sorted input insertion sort may be preferred instead of quicksort, which in general is a faster algorithm.

Just because the input is so important for an algorithm efficiency we may ask are there any sorting algorithms that are faster than O(n.log(n)), which is the average-case complexity for merge sort and quicksort. And the answer is yes there are faster, linear complexity algorithms, that can sort data faster than quicksort, merge sort and heapsort. But there are some constraints!

Everything sounds great but the thing is that we can’t sort any particular data with linear complexity, so the question is what rules the input must follow in order to be sorted in linear time.

Such an algorithm that is capable of sorting data in linear O(n) time is radix sort and the domain of the input is restricted – it must consist only of integers.

Overview

Let’s say we have an array of integers which is not sorted. Just because it consists only of integers and because array keys are integers in programming languages we can implement radix sort.

First for each value of the input array we put the value of “1” on the key-th place of the temporary array as explained on the following diagram.

Implementation

Implementing radix sort is very easy in fact, which is great. The thing is that old-school programming languages weren’t so flexible and we needed to initialize the entire temporary array. That leads to another problem – we must know the interval of values from the input. Fortunately nowadays programming languages and libraries are more flexible so we can initialize our temporary array even if we don’t know the interval of input values, as on the example bellow. PHP is somewhere in the middle – it’s flexible enough to build-up arrays in the memory without knowing their size in advance, but we still must ksort them.

$list = array(4, 3, 5, 9, 7, 2, 4, 1, 6, 5);
 
function radix_sort($input)
{
    $temp = $output = array();
	$len = count($input);
 
    for ($i = 0; $i < $len; $i++) {
		$temp[$input[$i]] = ($temp[$input[$i]] > 0) 
			? ++$temp[$input[$i]]
			: 1;
    }
    
    ksort($temp);
    
    foreach ($temp as $key => $val) {
		if ($val == 1) {
			$output[] = $key; 
		} else {
			while ($val--) {
				$output[] = $key;
			}
        }
    }
    
    return $output;
}
 
// 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 9
print_r(radix_sort($list));

The problem is that PHP needs ksort – which is completely foolish as we’re trying to sort an array using “another” sorting method, but to overcome this you must know the interval of values in advance and initialize a temporary array with 0s, as on the example bellow.

define(MIN, 1);
define(MAX, 9);
$list = array(4, 3, 5, 9, 7, 2, 4, 1, 6, 5);

function radix_sort(&$input)
{
    $temp = array();
	$len = count($input);
 
	// initialize with 0s
    $temp = array_fill(MIN, MAX-MIN+1, 0);
    
    foreach ($input as $key => $val) {
    	$temp[$val]++;
    }
    
    $input = array();
    foreach ($temp as $key => $val) {
	if ($val == 1) {
		$input[] = $key;
	} else {
		while ($val--) {
			$input[] = $key;
		}
	}
    }
}

// 4, 3, 5, 9, 7, 2, 4, 1, 6, 5
var_dump($list);

radix_sort(&$list);

// 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
var_dump($list);

Here the input is modified during the sorting process and it’s used as result.

Complexity

The complexity of radix sort is linear, which in terms of omega means O(n). That is a great benefit in performance compared to O(n.log(n)) or even worse with O(n²) as we can see on the following chart.

Why using radix sort

1. It’s fast

Radix sort is very fast compared to other sorting algorithms as we saw on the diagram above. This algorithm is very useful in practice because in practice we often sort sets of integers.

2. It’s easy to understand and implement

Even a beginner can understand and implement radix sort, which is great. You need no more than few loops to implement it.

Why NOT using radix sort

1. Works only with integers

If you’re not sure about the input better do not use radix sort. We may think that our input consists only of integers and we can go for radix sort, but what if in the future someone passes floats or strings to our routine.

2. Requires additional space

Radix sort needs additional space – at least as much as the input.

Final Words

Radix sort is restricted by the input’s domain, but I must say that in practice there are tons of cases where only integers are sorted. This is when we get some data from the db based on primary keys – typically primary in database tables are integers as well. So practically there are lots of cases of sorting integers, so radix sort may be one very, very useful algorithm and it is so cool that it is also easy to implement.

Basically sorting algorithms can be divided into two main groups. Such based on comparisons and such that are not. I already posted about some of the algorithms of the first group. Insertion sort, bubble sort and Shell sort are based on the comparison model. The problem with these three algorithms is that their complexity is O(n²) so they are very slow.

So is it possible to sort a list of items by comparing their items faster than O(n²)? The answer is yes and here’s how we can do it.

The nature of those three algorithms mentioned above is that we almost compared each two items from initial list.

This, of course, is not the best approach and we don’t need to do that. Instead we can try to divide the list into smaller lists and then sort them. After sorting the smaller lists, which is supposed to be easier than sorting the entire initial list, we can try to merge the result into one sorted list. This technique is typically known as “divide and conquer”.

Normally if a problem is too difficult to solve, we can try to break it apart into smaller sub-sets of this problem and try to solve them. Then somehow we can merge the results of the solved problems.

Overview

Merge sort is a comparison model sorting algorithm based on the “divide and conquer” principle. So far so good, so let’s say we have a very large list of data, which we want to sort. Obviously it will be better if we divide the list into two sub-lists with equal length and then sort them. If they remain too large, we can continue breaking them down until we get to something very easy to sort as shown on the diagram bellow.

The thing is that on some step of the algorithm we have two sorted lists and the tricky part is to merge them. However this is not so difficult.
We can start comparing the first items of the lists and than we can pop the smaller of them both and put it into a new list containing the merged (sorted) array.

Implementation

The good news is that this algorithm is fast, but not so difficult to implement and that sounds quite good from a developer’s point of view. Here’s the implementation in PHP. Note that every algorithm that follows the divide and conquer principles can be easily implemented in a recursive solution. However recursion can be bitter so you can go for a iterative solution. Typically recursion is “replaced” by additional memory space in iterative solutions. Here’s a recursive version of merge sort.

$input = array(6, 5, 3, 1, 8, 7, 2, 4);

function merge_sort($arr)  
{  
	if (count($arr) <= 1) {
		return $arr;  
	}

	$left = array_slice($arr, 0, (int)(count($arr)/2));  
	$right = array_slice($arr, (int)(count($arr)/2));  
	
	$left = merge_sort($left);  
	$right = merge_sort($right);  
	
	$output = merge($left, $right);  

	return $output;  
}  
      
      
function merge($left, $right)  
{  
	$result = array();  

	while (count($left) > 0 && count($right) > 0) {  
		if ($left[0] <= $right[0]) {  
			array_push($result, array_shift($left));  
		} else {  
			array_push($result, array_shift($right));  
		}  
	}  
      
	array_splice($result, count($result), 0, $left);  
	array_splice($result, count($result), 0, $right);  

	return $result;  
}  

// 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
$output = merge_sort($input);

Complexity

It’s great that the complexity of merge sort is O(n*log(n)) even in the worst case! Note that even quicksort’s complexity can be O(n²) in the worst case. So we can be sure that merge sort is very stable no matter the input.

Two reasons why merge sort is useful

1. Fast no matter the input

Merge sort is a great sorting algorithm mainly because it’s very fast and stable. It’s complexity is the same even in the worst case and it is O(n*log(n)). Note that even quicksort's complexity is O(n²) in the worst case, which for n = 20 is about 4.6 times slower!

2. Easy implementation

Another cool reason is that merge sort is easy to implement. Indeed most of the developer consider something fast to be difficult to implement, but that's not the case of merge sort.

Three reasons why merge sort is not useful

1. Slower than non-comparison based algorithms

Merge sort is however based on the comparison model and as such can be slower than algorithms non-based on comparisons that can sort data in linear time. Of course, this depends on the input data, so we must be careful for the input.

2. Difficult to implement for beginners

Although I don’t think this can be the main reason why not to use merge sort some people say that it can be difficult to implement for beginners, especially the merge part of the algorithm.

3. Slower than insertion and bubble sort for nearly sorted input

Again it is very important to know the input data. Indeed if the input is nearly sorted the insertion sort or bubble sort can be faster. Note that in the best case insertion and bubble sort complexity is O(n), while merge sort's best case is O(n*log(n)).

As a conclusion I can say that merge sort is practically one of the best sorting algorithms because it's easy to implement and fast, so it must be considered by every developer!

Insertion sort is a great algorithm, because it’s very intuitive and it is easy to implement, but the problem is that it makes many exchanges for each “light” element in order to put it on the right place. Thus “light” elements at the end of the list may slow down the performance of insertion sort a lot. That is why in 1959 Donald Shell proposed an algorithm that tries to overcome this problem by comparing items of the list that lie far apart.

In the other hand it is obvious that by comparing items that lie apart the list can’t be sorted in one pass as insertion sort. That is why on each pass we should use a fixed gap between the items, then decrease the value on every consecutive iteration.

However it is intuitively clear that Shell sort may need even more comparisons than insertion sort. Then why should we use it?

The thing is that insertion sort is not an effective sorting algorithm at all, but in some cases, when the list is almost sorted it can be quite useful. Here’s the answer of the question above. With Shell sort once the list is sorted for gap = i, it is sorted for every gap = j, where j < i, and this is its main advantage. [caption id="attachment_2792" align="alignnone" width="620" caption="Shell sort can make less exchanges than insertion sort."][/caption]

How to choose gap size

Not a cool thing about Shell sort is that we’ve to choose “the perfect” gap sequence for our list. However this is not an easy task, because it depends a lot of the input data. The good news is that there are some gap sequences proved to be working well in the general cases.

Shell Sequence

Donald Shell proposes a sequence that follows the formula FLOOR(N/2^k), then for N = 1000, we get the following sequence: [500, 250, 125, 62, 31, 15, 7, 3, 1]

Pratt Sequence

Pratt proposes another sequence that’s growing with a slower pace than the Shell’s sequence. He proposes successive numbers of the form 2^p3^q or [1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, …].

Knuth Sequence

Knuth in other hand proposes his own sequence following the formula (3^k – 1) / 2 or [1, 4, 14, 40, 121, …]

Of course there are many other gap sequences, proposed by various developers and researchers, but the problem is that the effectiveness of the algorithm strongly depends on the input data. But before taking a look to the complexity of Shell sort, let’s see first its implementation.

Implementation

Here’s a Shell sort implementation on PHP using the Pratt gap sequence. The thing is that for this data set other gap sequences may appear to be better solution.

$input = array(6, 5, 3, 1, 8, 7, 2, 4);

function shell_sort($arr)
{
	$gaps = array(1, 2, 3, 4, 6);
	$gap  = array_pop($gaps);
	$len  = count($arr);
	
	while($gap > 0)
	{
		for($i = $gap; $i < $len; $i++) {
			
			$temp = $arr[$i];
			$j = $i;
			
			while($j >= $gap && $arr[$j - $gap] > $temp) {
				$arr[$j] = $arr[$j - $gap];
				$j -= $gap;
			}
			
			$arr[$j] = $temp;
		}
		
		$gap = array_pop($gaps);
	}
	
	return $arr;
}

// 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
shell_sort($input);

It’s easy to change this code in order to work with Shell sequence.

$input = array(6, 5, 3, 1, 8, 7, 2, 4);

function shell_sort($arr)
{
        $len  = count($arr);
	$gap  = floor($len/2);
	
	while($gap > 0)
	{
		for($i = $gap; $i < $len; $i++) {
			
			$temp = $arr[$i];
			$j = $i;
			
			while($j >= $gap && $arr[$j - $gap] > $temp) {
				$arr[$j] = $arr[$j - $gap];
				$j -= $gap;
			}
			
			$arr[$j] = $temp;
		}
		
		$gap = floor($gap/2);
	}
	
	return $arr;
}

// 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
shell_sort($input);

Complexity

Yet again we can’t determine the exact complexity of this algorithm, because it depends on the gap sequence. However we may say what is the complexity of Shell sort with the sequences of Knuth, Pratt and Donald Shell. For the Shell’s sequence the complexity is O(n²), while for the Pratt’s sequence it is O(n*log²(n)). The best approach is the Knuth sequence where the complexity is O(n^3/2), as you can see on the diagram bellow.

Application

Well, as insertion sort and bubble sort, Shell sort is not very effective compared to quicksort or merge sort. The good thing is that it is quite easy to implement (not easier than insertion sort), but in general it should be avoided for large data sets. Perhaps the main advantage of Shell sort is that the list can be sorted for a gap greater than 1 and thus making less exchanges than insertion sort.