Adding the heap queue algorithm, per discussion in python-dev last
week.
This commit is contained in:
Guido van Rossum
parent
f4433303a8
commit
0a82438859
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
|
|||
"""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
|
||||
|
||||
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!
|
||||
"""
|
||||
|
||||
__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! :-)
|
||||
"""
|
||||
|
||||
def heappush(heap, item):
|
||||
"""Push item onto heap, maintaining the heap invariant."""
|
||||
pos = len(heap)
|
||||
heap.append(None)
|
||||
while pos:
|
||||
parentpos = (pos - 1) / 2
|
||||
parent = heap[parentpos]
|
||||
if item >= parent:
|
||||
break
|
||||
heap[pos] = parent
|
||||
pos = parentpos
|
||||
heap[pos] = item
|
||||
|
||||
def heappop(heap):
|
||||
"""Pop the smallest item off the heap, maintaining the heap invariant."""
|
||||
endpos = len(heap) - 1
|
||||
if endpos <= 0:
|
||||
return heap.pop()
|
||||
returnitem = heap[0]
|
||||
item = heap.pop()
|
||||
pos = 0
|
||||
while 1:
|
||||
child2pos = (pos + 1) * 2
|
||||
child1pos = child2pos - 1
|
||||
if child2pos < endpos:
|
||||
child1 = heap[child1pos]
|
||||
child2 = heap[child2pos]
|
||||
if item <= child1 and item <= child2:
|
||||
break
|
||||
if child1 < child2:
|
||||
heap[pos] = child1
|
||||
pos = child1pos
|
||||
continue
|
||||
heap[pos] = child2
|
||||
pos = child2pos
|
||||
continue
|
||||
if child1pos < endpos:
|
||||
child1 = heap[child1pos]
|
||||
if child1 < item:
|
||||
heap[pos] = child1
|
||||
pos = child1pos
|
||||
break
|
||||
heap[pos] = item
|
||||
return returnitem
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue