Heapsort
Heaps
16
14 10
8 7 9 3
2 4 1
Heaps
A heap can be seen as a complete binary tree:
16
14 10
8 7 9 3
2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
The book calls them “nearly complete” binary trees;
can think of unfilled slots as null pointers
Heaps
In practice, heaps are usually implemented as
arrays:
16
14 10
8 7 9 3
A = 16 14 10 8 7 9 3 2 4 1 =
2 4 1
Heaps
To represent a complete binary tree as an array:
The root node is A[1]
Node i is A[i]
The parent of node i is A[i/2] (note: integer divide)
The left child of node i is A[2i]
The right child of node i is A[2i + 1]
16
14 10
8 7 9 3
A = 16 14 10 8 7 9 3 2 4 1 =
2 4 1
Referencing Heap Elements
So…
Parent(i) { return i/2; }
Left(i) { return 2*i; }
right(i) { return 2*i + 1; }
An aside: How would you implement this
most efficiently?
Trick question, I was looking for “i << 1”, etc.
But, any modern compiler is smart enough to do this
for you (and it makes the code hard to follow)
The Heap Property
Heaps also satisfy the heap property:
A[Parent(i)] A[i] for all nodes i > 1
In other words, the value of a node is at most the
value of its parent
Where is the largest element in a heap stored?
Heap Height
Definitions:
The height of a node in the tree = the number of
edges on the longest downward path to a leaf
The height of a tree = the height of its root
What is the height of an n-element heap?
Why?
This is nice: basic heap operations take at most
time proportional to the height of the heap
Heap Operations: Heapify()
Heapify(): maintain the heap property
Given: a node i in the heap with children l and r
Given: two subtrees rooted at l and r, assumed to be
heaps
Problem: The subtree rooted at i may violate the heap
property (How?)
Action: let the value of the parent node “float down”
so subtree at i satisfies the heap property
What do you suppose will be the basic operation between i,
l, and r?
Heap Operations: Heapify()
Heapify(A, i)
{
l = Left(i); r = Right(i);
if (l <= heap_size(A) && A[l] > A[i])
largest = l;
else
largest = i;
if (r <= heap_size(A) && A[r] > A[largest])
largest = r;
if (largest != i)
Swap(A, i, largest);
Heapify(A, largest);
}
Heapify() Example
16
4 10
14 7 9 3
2 8 1
A = 16 4 10 14 7 9 3 2 8 1
Heapify() Example
16
4 10
14 7 9 3
2 8 1
A = 16 4 10 14 7 9 3 2 8 1
Heapify() Example
16
4 10
14 7 9 3
2 8 1
A = 16 4 10 14 7 9 3 2 8 1
Heapify() Example
16
14 10
4 7 9 3
2 8 1
A = 16 14 10 4 7 9 3 2 8 1
Heapify() Example
16
14 10
4 7 9 3
2 8 1
A = 16 14 10 4 7 9 3 2 8 1
Heapify() Example
16
14 10
4 7 9 3
2 8 1
A = 16 14 10 4 7 9 3 2 8 1
Heapify() Example
16
14 10
8 7 9 3
2 4 1
A = 16 14 10 8 7 9 3 2 4 1
Heapify() Example
16
14 10
8 7 9 3
2 4 1
A = 16 14 10 8 7 9 3 2 4 1
Heapify() Example
16
14 10
8 7 9 3
2 4 1
A = 16 14 10 8 7 9 3 2 4 1
Analyzing Heapify(): Informal
Aside from the recursive call, what is the
running time of Heapify()?
How many times can Heapify() recursively
call itself?
What is the worst-case running time of
Heapify() on a heap of size n?
Analyzing Heapify(): Formal
Fixing up relationships between i, l, and r
takes (1) time
If the heap at i has n elements, how many
elements can the subtrees at l or r have?
Draw it
Answer: 2n/3 (worst case: bottom row 1/2 full)
So time taken by Heapify() is given by
T(n) T(2n/3) + (1)
Analyzing Heapify(): Formal
So we have
T(n) T(2n/3) + (1)
By case 2 of the Master Theorem,
T(n) = O(lg n)
Thus, Heapify() takes logarithmic time
Heap Operations: BuildHeap()
We can build a heap in a bottom-up manner by
running Heapify() on successive subarrays
Fact: for array of length n, all elements in range
A[n/2 + 1 .. n] are heaps (Why?)
So:
Walk backwards through the array from n/2 to 1, calling
Heapify() on each node.
Order of processing guarantees that the children of node
i are heaps when i is processed
BuildHeap()
// given an unsorted array A, make A a heap
BuildHeap(A)
{
heap_size(A) = length(A);
for (i = length[A]/2 downto 1)
Heapify(A, i);
}
BuildHeap() Example
Work through example
A = {4, 1, 3, 2, 16, 9, 10, 14, 8, 7}
1 3
2 16 9 10
14 8 7
Analyzing BuildHeap()
Each call to Heapify() takes O(lg n) time
There are O(n) such calls (specifically, n/2)
Thus the running time is O(n lg n)
Is this a correct asymptotic upper bound?
Is this an asymptotically tight bound?
A tighter bound is O(n)
How can this be? Is there a flaw in the above
reasoning?
Analyzing BuildHeap(): Tight
To Heapify() a subtree takes O(h) time
where h is the height of the subtree
h = O(lg m), m = # nodes in subtree
The height of most subtrees is small
Fact: an n-element heap has at most n/2h+1
nodes of height h
CLR 7.3 uses this fact to prove that
BuildHeap() takes O(n) time
Heapsort
Given BuildHeap(), an in-place sorting
algorithm is easily constructed:
Maximum element is at A[1]
Discard by swapping with element at A[n]
Decrement heap_size[A]
A[n] now contains correct value
Restore heap property at A[1] by calling
Heapify()
Repeat, always swapping A[1] for A[heap_size(A)]
Heapsort
Heapsort(A)
{
BuildHeap(A);
for (i = length(A) downto 2)
{
Swap(A[1], A[i]);
heap_size(A) -= 1;
Heapify(A, 1);
}
}
Analyzing Heapsort
The call to BuildHeap() takes O(n) time
Each of the n - 1 calls to Heapify() takes
O(lg n) time
Thus the total time taken by HeapSort()
= O(n) + (n - 1) O(lg n)
= O(n) + O(n lg n)
= O(n lg n)
Priority Queues
Heapsort is a nice algorithm, but in practice
Quicksort (coming up) usually wins
But the heap data structure is incredibly useful
for implementing priority queues
A data structure for maintaining a set S of elements,
each with an associated value or key
Supports the operations Insert(), Maximum(),
and ExtractMax()
What might a priority queue be useful for?
Priority Queue Operations
Insert(S, x) inserts the element x into set S
Maximum(S) returns the element of S with
the maximum key
ExtractMax(S) removes and returns the
element of S with the maximum key
How could we implement these operations
using a heap?
