mirror of https://github.com/python/cpython
320 lines
13 KiB
Python
320 lines
13 KiB
Python
# -*- coding: Latin-1 -*-
|
|
|
|
"""Heap queue algorithm (a.k.a. priority queue).
|
|
|
|
Heaps are arrays for which a[k] <= a[2*k+1] and a[k] <= a[2*k+2] for
|
|
all k, counting elements from 0. For the sake of comparison,
|
|
non-existing elements are considered to be infinite. The interesting
|
|
property of a heap is that a[0] is always its smallest element.
|
|
|
|
Usage:
|
|
|
|
heap = [] # creates an empty heap
|
|
heappush(heap, item) # pushes a new item on the heap
|
|
item = heappop(heap) # pops the smallest item from the heap
|
|
item = heap[0] # smallest item on the heap without popping it
|
|
heapify(x) # transforms list into a heap, in-place, in linear time
|
|
item = heapreplace(heap, item) # pops and returns smallest item, and adds
|
|
# new item; the heap size is unchanged
|
|
|
|
Our API differs from textbook heap algorithms as follows:
|
|
|
|
- We use 0-based indexing. This makes the relationship between the
|
|
index for a node and the indexes for its children slightly less
|
|
obvious, but is more suitable since Python uses 0-based indexing.
|
|
|
|
- Our heappop() method returns the smallest item, not the largest.
|
|
|
|
These two make it possible to view the heap as a regular Python list
|
|
without surprises: heap[0] is the smallest item, and heap.sort()
|
|
maintains the heap invariant!
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
# Original code by Kevin O'Connor, augmented by Tim Peters and Raymond Hettinger
|
|
|
|
__about__ = """Heap queues
|
|
|
|
[explanation by François Pinard]
|
|
|
|
Heaps are arrays for which a[k] <= a[2*k+1] and a[k] <= a[2*k+2] for
|
|
all k, counting elements from 0. For the sake of comparison,
|
|
non-existing elements are considered to be infinite. The interesting
|
|
property of a heap is that a[0] is always its smallest element.
|
|
|
|
The strange invariant above is meant to be an efficient memory
|
|
representation for a tournament. The numbers below are `k', not a[k]:
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
1 2
|
|
|
|
3 4 5 6
|
|
|
|
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
|
|
|
|
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the tree above, each cell `k' is topping `2*k+1' and `2*k+2'. In
|
|
an usual binary tournament we see in sports, each cell is the winner
|
|
over the two cells it tops, and we can trace the winner down the tree
|
|
to see all opponents s/he had. However, in many computer applications
|
|
of such tournaments, we do not need to trace the history of a winner.
|
|
To be more memory efficient, when a winner is promoted, we try to
|
|
replace it by something else at a lower level, and the rule becomes
|
|
that a cell and the two cells it tops contain three different items,
|
|
but the top cell "wins" over the two topped cells.
|
|
|
|
If this heap invariant is protected at all time, index 0 is clearly
|
|
the overall winner. The simplest algorithmic way to remove it and
|
|
find the "next" winner is to move some loser (let's say cell 30 in the
|
|
diagram above) into the 0 position, and then percolate this new 0 down
|
|
the tree, exchanging values, until the invariant is re-established.
|
|
This is clearly logarithmic on the total number of items in the tree.
|
|
By iterating over all items, you get an O(n ln n) sort.
|
|
|
|
A nice feature of this sort is that you can efficiently insert new
|
|
items while the sort is going on, provided that the inserted items are
|
|
not "better" than the last 0'th element you extracted. This is
|
|
especially useful in simulation contexts, where the tree holds all
|
|
incoming events, and the "win" condition means the smallest scheduled
|
|
time. When an event schedule other events for execution, they are
|
|
scheduled into the future, so they can easily go into the heap. So, a
|
|
heap is a good structure for implementing schedulers (this is what I
|
|
used for my MIDI sequencer :-).
|
|
|
|
Various structures for implementing schedulers have been extensively
|
|
studied, and heaps are good for this, as they are reasonably speedy,
|
|
the speed is almost constant, and the worst case is not much different
|
|
than the average case. However, there are other representations which
|
|
are more efficient overall, yet the worst cases might be terrible.
|
|
|
|
Heaps are also very useful in big disk sorts. You most probably all
|
|
know that a big sort implies producing "runs" (which are pre-sorted
|
|
sequences, which size is usually related to the amount of CPU memory),
|
|
followed by a merging passes for these runs, which merging is often
|
|
very cleverly organised[1]. It is very important that the initial
|
|
sort produces the longest runs possible. Tournaments are a good way
|
|
to that. If, using all the memory available to hold a tournament, you
|
|
replace and percolate items that happen to fit the current run, you'll
|
|
produce runs which are twice the size of the memory for random input,
|
|
and much better for input fuzzily ordered.
|
|
|
|
Moreover, if you output the 0'th item on disk and get an input which
|
|
may not fit in the current tournament (because the value "wins" over
|
|
the last output value), it cannot fit in the heap, so the size of the
|
|
heap decreases. The freed memory could be cleverly reused immediately
|
|
for progressively building a second heap, which grows at exactly the
|
|
same rate the first heap is melting. When the first heap completely
|
|
vanishes, you switch heaps and start a new run. Clever and quite
|
|
effective!
|
|
|
|
In a word, heaps are useful memory structures to know. I use them in
|
|
a few applications, and I think it is good to keep a `heap' module
|
|
around. :-)
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
[1] The disk balancing algorithms which are current, nowadays, are
|
|
more annoying than clever, and this is a consequence of the seeking
|
|
capabilities of the disks. On devices which cannot seek, like big
|
|
tape drives, the story was quite different, and one had to be very
|
|
clever to ensure (far in advance) that each tape movement will be the
|
|
most effective possible (that is, will best participate at
|
|
"progressing" the merge). Some tapes were even able to read
|
|
backwards, and this was also used to avoid the rewinding time.
|
|
Believe me, real good tape sorts were quite spectacular to watch!
|
|
From all times, sorting has always been a Great Art! :-)
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
__all__ = ['heappush', 'heappop', 'heapify', 'heapreplace', 'nlargest',
|
|
'nsmallest']
|
|
|
|
from itertools import islice, repeat
|
|
import bisect
|
|
|
|
def heappush(heap, item):
|
|
"""Push item onto heap, maintaining the heap invariant."""
|
|
heap.append(item)
|
|
_siftdown(heap, 0, len(heap)-1)
|
|
|
|
def heappop(heap):
|
|
"""Pop the smallest item off the heap, maintaining the heap invariant."""
|
|
lastelt = heap.pop() # raises appropriate IndexError if heap is empty
|
|
if heap:
|
|
returnitem = heap[0]
|
|
heap[0] = lastelt
|
|
_siftup(heap, 0)
|
|
else:
|
|
returnitem = lastelt
|
|
return returnitem
|
|
|
|
def heapreplace(heap, item):
|
|
"""Pop and return the current smallest value, and add the new item.
|
|
|
|
This is more efficient than heappop() followed by heappush(), and can be
|
|
more appropriate when using a fixed-size heap. Note that the value
|
|
returned may be larger than item! That constrains reasonable uses of
|
|
this routine unless written as part of a conditional replacement:
|
|
|
|
if item > heap[0]:
|
|
item = heapreplace(heap, item)
|
|
"""
|
|
returnitem = heap[0] # raises appropriate IndexError if heap is empty
|
|
heap[0] = item
|
|
_siftup(heap, 0)
|
|
return returnitem
|
|
|
|
def heapify(x):
|
|
"""Transform list into a heap, in-place, in O(len(heap)) time."""
|
|
n = len(x)
|
|
# Transform bottom-up. The largest index there's any point to looking at
|
|
# is the largest with a child index in-range, so must have 2*i + 1 < n,
|
|
# or i < (n-1)/2. If n is even = 2*j, this is (2*j-1)/2 = j-1/2 so
|
|
# j-1 is the largest, which is n//2 - 1. If n is odd = 2*j+1, this is
|
|
# (2*j+1-1)/2 = j so j-1 is the largest, and that's again n//2-1.
|
|
for i in reversed(xrange(n//2)):
|
|
_siftup(x, i)
|
|
|
|
def nlargest(n, iterable):
|
|
"""Find the n largest elements in a dataset.
|
|
|
|
Equivalent to: sorted(iterable, reverse=True)[:n]
|
|
"""
|
|
it = iter(iterable)
|
|
result = list(islice(it, n))
|
|
if not result:
|
|
return result
|
|
heapify(result)
|
|
_heapreplace = heapreplace
|
|
sol = result[0] # sol --> smallest of the nlargest
|
|
for elem in it:
|
|
if elem <= sol:
|
|
continue
|
|
_heapreplace(result, elem)
|
|
sol = result[0]
|
|
result.sort(reverse=True)
|
|
return result
|
|
|
|
def nsmallest(n, iterable):
|
|
"""Find the n smallest elements in a dataset.
|
|
|
|
Equivalent to: sorted(iterable)[:n]
|
|
"""
|
|
if hasattr(iterable, '__len__') and n * 10 <= len(iterable):
|
|
# For smaller values of n, the bisect method is faster than a minheap.
|
|
# It is also memory efficient, consuming only n elements of space.
|
|
it = iter(iterable)
|
|
result = sorted(islice(it, 0, n))
|
|
if not result:
|
|
return result
|
|
insort = bisect.insort
|
|
pop = result.pop
|
|
los = result[-1] # los --> Largest of the nsmallest
|
|
for elem in it:
|
|
if los <= elem:
|
|
continue
|
|
insort(result, elem)
|
|
pop()
|
|
los = result[-1]
|
|
return result
|
|
# An alternative approach manifests the whole iterable in memory but
|
|
# saves comparisons by heapifying all at once. Also, saves time
|
|
# over bisect.insort() which has O(n) data movement time for every
|
|
# insertion. Finding the n smallest of an m length iterable requires
|
|
# O(m) + O(n log m) comparisons.
|
|
h = list(iterable)
|
|
heapify(h)
|
|
return map(heappop, repeat(h, min(n, len(h))))
|
|
|
|
# 'heap' is a heap at all indices >= startpos, except possibly for pos. pos
|
|
# is the index of a leaf with a possibly out-of-order value. Restore the
|
|
# heap invariant.
|
|
def _siftdown(heap, startpos, pos):
|
|
newitem = heap[pos]
|
|
# Follow the path to the root, moving parents down until finding a place
|
|
# newitem fits.
|
|
while pos > startpos:
|
|
parentpos = (pos - 1) >> 1
|
|
parent = heap[parentpos]
|
|
if parent <= newitem:
|
|
break
|
|
heap[pos] = parent
|
|
pos = parentpos
|
|
heap[pos] = newitem
|
|
|
|
# The child indices of heap index pos are already heaps, and we want to make
|
|
# a heap at index pos too. We do this by bubbling the smaller child of
|
|
# pos up (and so on with that child's children, etc) until hitting a leaf,
|
|
# then using _siftdown to move the oddball originally at index pos into place.
|
|
#
|
|
# We *could* break out of the loop as soon as we find a pos where newitem <=
|
|
# both its children, but turns out that's not a good idea, and despite that
|
|
# many books write the algorithm that way. During a heap pop, the last array
|
|
# element is sifted in, and that tends to be large, so that comparing it
|
|
# against values starting from the root usually doesn't pay (= usually doesn't
|
|
# get us out of the loop early). See Knuth, Volume 3, where this is
|
|
# explained and quantified in an exercise.
|
|
#
|
|
# Cutting the # of comparisons is important, since these routines have no
|
|
# way to extract "the priority" from an array element, so that intelligence
|
|
# is likely to be hiding in custom __cmp__ methods, or in array elements
|
|
# storing (priority, record) tuples. Comparisons are thus potentially
|
|
# expensive.
|
|
#
|
|
# On random arrays of length 1000, making this change cut the number of
|
|
# comparisons made by heapify() a little, and those made by exhaustive
|
|
# heappop() a lot, in accord with theory. Here are typical results from 3
|
|
# runs (3 just to demonstrate how small the variance is):
|
|
#
|
|
# Compares needed by heapify Compares needed by 1000 heappops
|
|
# -------------------------- --------------------------------
|
|
# 1837 cut to 1663 14996 cut to 8680
|
|
# 1855 cut to 1659 14966 cut to 8678
|
|
# 1847 cut to 1660 15024 cut to 8703
|
|
#
|
|
# Building the heap by using heappush() 1000 times instead required
|
|
# 2198, 2148, and 2219 compares: heapify() is more efficient, when
|
|
# you can use it.
|
|
#
|
|
# The total compares needed by list.sort() on the same lists were 8627,
|
|
# 8627, and 8632 (this should be compared to the sum of heapify() and
|
|
# heappop() compares): list.sort() is (unsurprisingly!) more efficient
|
|
# for sorting.
|
|
|
|
def _siftup(heap, pos):
|
|
endpos = len(heap)
|
|
startpos = pos
|
|
newitem = heap[pos]
|
|
# Bubble up the smaller child until hitting a leaf.
|
|
childpos = 2*pos + 1 # leftmost child position
|
|
while childpos < endpos:
|
|
# Set childpos to index of smaller child.
|
|
rightpos = childpos + 1
|
|
if rightpos < endpos and heap[rightpos] <= heap[childpos]:
|
|
childpos = rightpos
|
|
# Move the smaller child up.
|
|
heap[pos] = heap[childpos]
|
|
pos = childpos
|
|
childpos = 2*pos + 1
|
|
# The leaf at pos is empty now. Put newitem there, and bubble it up
|
|
# to its final resting place (by sifting its parents down).
|
|
heap[pos] = newitem
|
|
_siftdown(heap, startpos, pos)
|
|
|
|
# If available, use C implementation
|
|
try:
|
|
from _heapq import heappush, heappop, heapify, heapreplace, nlargest, nsmallest
|
|
except ImportError:
|
|
pass
|
|
|
|
if __name__ == "__main__":
|
|
# Simple sanity test
|
|
heap = []
|
|
data = [1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 2, 4, 6, 8, 0]
|
|
for item in data:
|
|
heappush(heap, item)
|
|
sort = []
|
|
while heap:
|
|
sort.append(heappop(heap))
|
|
print sort
|