Merge sort time and space complexity
MergeSort time Complexity is O(nlgn) which is a fundamental knowledge. Merge Sort space complexity will always be O(n) including with arrays. If you draw the space tree out, it will seem as though the space complexity is O(nlgn). However, as the code is a Depth First code, you will always only be expanding along one branch of the tree, therefore, the total space usage required will always be bounded by O(3n) = O(n).
For example, if you draw the space tree out, it seems like it is O(nlgn)
16 | 16
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
8 8 | 16
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
4 4 4 4 | 16
/ \ / \ / \ / \
2 2 2 2..................... | 16
/ \ /\ ........................
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 16
where height of tree is O(logn) => Space complexity is O(nlogn + n) = O(nlogn). However, this is not the case in the actual code as it does not execute in parallel. For example, in the case where N = 16, this is how the code for mergesort executes. N = 16.
16
/
8
/
4
/
2
/ \
1 1
notice how number of space used is 32 = 2n = 2*16 < 3n
Then it merge upwards
16
/
8
/
4
/ \
2 2
/ \
1 1
which is 34 < 3n. Then it merge upwards
16
/
8
/ \
4 4
/
2
/ \
1 1
36 < 16 * 3 = 48
then it merge upwards
16
/ \
8 8
/ \
4 4
/ \
2 2
/\
1 1
16 + 16 + 14 = 46 < 3*n = 48
in a larger case, n = 64
64
/ \
32 32
/ \
16 16
/ \
8 8
/ \
4 4
/ \
2 2
/\
1 1
which is 64*3 <= 3*n = 3*64
You can prove this by induction for the general case.
Therefore, space complexity is always bounded by O(3n) = O(n) even if you implement with arrays as long as you clean up used space after merging and not execute code in parallel but sequential.
Example of my implementation is given below:
templace<class X>
void mergesort(X a[], int n) // X is a type using templates
{
if (n==1)
{
return;
}
int q, p;
q = n/2;
p = n/2;
//if(n % 2 == 1) p++; // increment by 1
if(n & 0x1) p++; // increment by 1
// note: doing and operator is much faster in hardware than calculating the mod (%)
X b[q];
int i = 0;
for (i = 0; i < q; i++)
{
b[i] = a[i];
}
mergesort(b, i);
// do mergesort here to save space
// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10342890/merge-sort-time-and-space-complexity/28641693#28641693
// After returning from previous mergesort only do you create the next array.
X c[p];
int k = 0;
for (int j = q; j < n; j++)
{
c[k] = a[j];
k++;
}
mergesort(c, k);
int r, s, t;
t = 0; r = 0; s = 0;
while( (r!= q) && (s != p))
{
if (b[r] <= c[s])
{
a[t] = b[r];
r++;
}
else
{
a[t] = c[s];
s++;
}
t++;
}
if (r==q)
{
while(s!=p)
{
a[t] = c[s];
s++;
t++;
}
}
else
{
while(r != q)
{
a[t] = b[r];
r++;
t++;
}
}
return;
}
Hope this helps!=)
Soon Chee Loong,
University of Toronto
a) Yes - in a perfect world you'd have to do log n merges of size n, n/2, n/4 ... (or better said 1, 2, 3 ... n/4, n/2, n - they can't be parallelized), which gives O(n). It still is O(n log n). In not-so-perfect-world you don't have infinite number of processors and context-switching and synchronization offsets any potential gains.
b) Space complexity is always Ω(n) as you have to store the elements somewhere. Additional space complexity can be O(n) in an implementation using arrays and O(1) in linked list implementations. In practice implementations using lists need additional space for list pointers, so unless you already have the list in memory it shouldn't matter.
edit if you count stack frames, then it's O(n)+ O(log n) , so still O(n) in case of arrays. In case of lists it's O(log n) additional memory.
c) Lists only need some pointers changed during the merge process. That requires constant additional memory.
d) That's why in merge-sort complexity analysis people mention 'additional space requirement' or things like that. It's obvious that you have to store the elements somewhere, but it's always better to mention 'additional memory' to keep purists at bay.