pleas provide me with a ternary search algorithm. It will
search through a contiguous array of long ints returning the location of the first item in that ordered list that it finds, or returning -1 if no match is found. The parameters for this will be the list and the target sought.
I'm guessing that you want a binary search algorithm--never heard of a ternary search algorithm.
Here is the code from page 38 of Bentley's Programming Pearls, translated into C:
int bsearch(int list[], int length, int item)
{
int l=0, u=length-1, m;
while (1) {
/* loop invariant: item must be in list[l] .. list[u] */
if (l > u)
return -1;
m = (l+u) / 2;
if (list[m] < item) l = m + 1;
else if (list[m] == item) return m;
else if (list[m] > item) u = m-1;
}
}
I suppose it could be turned into a ternary search by splitting the list three ways and expanding the list of cases... but it would probably be a little tricky to get right (binary search is famous for being incorrectly implemented). Ah... that's probably what your homework assignment is. Well, good luck to you, and go read Bentley's essay--it will help you get it right.
int tsearch(int find, int array[], int count) {
int lo = 0;
int hi = count-1;
return tsearch_helper(find,array,lo,hi);
}
int tsearch_helper(int find, int array[], int lo, int hi) {
int bot,top;
/* if nothing to search - easy */
if (lo > hi)
return -1;
/* if only one thing to search it is easy */
if (lo == hi)
return find == array[lo] ? lo : -1;
/* split into three */
int bot = (1*(lo+hi))/3; /* bottom third */
int top = (2*(lo+hi))/3; /* top third */
/* is it in the bottom part? */
if (find < array[bot])
return tsearch_helper(find,array,lo,bot-1);
/* is it in the top part? */
if (find > array[top])
return tsearch_helper(find,array,top+1,hi);
/* must be in the middle part */
return tsearch_helper(find,array,bot,top);
}
/* split into three */
int bot = (1*(lo+hi))/3; /* bottom third */
int top = (2*(lo+hi))/3; /* top third */
should be
int bot = (1*(hi-lo)/3)+lo;
int top = (2*(hi-lo)/3)+lo;
An alternative algorithm is
int tsearch(int find, int array[], int count) {
int bot,top,found;
/* if nothing to search - easy */
if (count < 0)
return -1;
/* if only one thing to search it is easy */
if (count == 0)
return find == array[0] ? 0 : -1;
/* split into three */
int bot = (1*n)/3; /* bottom third */
int top = (2*n)/3; /* top third */
/* is it in the bottom part? */
if (find < array[bot]) {
found = 0+tsearch_helper(find,array,bot-lo);
return found;
}
/* is it in the top part? */
if (find > array[top])
found = tsearch_helper(find,array,count-top);
return found < 0 ? -1 : top+1+found;
}
/* must be in the middle part */
{
found = tsearch_helper(find,array,top-bot+1);
return found < 0 ? -1 : bot+found;
}
}
0
Want to avoid the missteps to gaining all the benefits of the cloud? Learn more about the different assessment options from our Cloud Advisory team.
NOTE: The article I referred you to is by Jon Bentley and Robert Sedgewick
Bentley is the person who wrote the book jaked mentioned. And Sedgewick is (as I understand) the guy who invented shell sort.
PS: If you have found my comments helpful and wish to reward me then you need to reject the current proposed answer so I can post one - or post a dummy question for me to answer, if you afford the points.
There's really no reason to make tsearch_helper recursive; it's a tail-call so you can just reassign the variables and goto the beginning (see "Lambda, the ultimate GOTO").
Just for fun, here's an N-ary search, which takes N as a parameter:
int nsearch(int N, int list[], int length, int item)
{
int l=0, u=length-1, m, i;
while (1) {
if (l > u)
return -1;
for (i = 1; i < N; i++) {
m = l + (i * (u-l) / N);
if (item < list[m]) {
u = m-1;
break;
}
else if (item == list[m])
return m;
else if (item > list[m])
l = m+1;
}
}
}
Yes - could very easily make non-recursive (tail-end recursion is trivial to eliminate), but the recursive code shows the structure of the sort more obviously.
another typo
int bot = (1*n)/3; /* bottom third */
int top = (2*n)/3; /* top third */
should be
bot = (1*count)/3; /* bottom third */
top = (2*count)/3; /* top third */
as I've already declared these (I was thinking C++ when writing, then added declarations at the top, but forgot to remove the old ones from the body)
Other typos was referring to tsearch_help instead of tsearch and using n instead of count.
Damn .. not my night.
Here is compilable code in full..
int tsearch(int find, int array[], int count) {
int bot,top,found;
/* if nothing to search - easy */
if (count < 0)
return -1;
/* if only one thing to search it is easy */
if (count == 0)
return find == array[0] ? 0 : -1;
/* split into three */
bot = (1*n)/3; /* bottom third */
top = (2*n)/3; /* top third */
/* is it in the bottom part? */
if (find < array[bot]) {
found = 0+tsearch(find,array,bot-lo);
return found;
}
/* is it in the top part? */
if (find > array[top]) {
found = tsearch(find,array,count-top);
return found < 0 ? -1 : top+1+found;
}
/* must be in the middle part */
{
found = tsearch_helper(find,array,top-bot+1);
return found < 0 ? -1 : bot+found;
}
}
int tsearch(int find, int array[], int count) {
int bot,top,found;
/* if nothing to search - easy */
if (count <= 0)
return -1;
/* if only one thing to search it is easy */
if (count == 1)
return find == array[0] ? 0 : -1;
/* split into three */
bot = (1*count)/3; /* bottom third */
top = (2*count)/3; /* top third */
/* is it in the bottom part? */
if (find < array[bot]) {
found = 0+tsearch(find,array,bot);
return found;
}
/* is it in the middle part */
if (find < array[top]) {
found = tsearch(find,array+bot,top-bot);
return found < 0 ? -1 : bot+found;
}
/* must be in the top part? */
{
found = tsearch(find,array+top,count-top);
return found < 0 ? -1 : top+found;
}
}
This code (when optimised for speed) eliminates the tail end recursion .. looks like the helper function is the 'better' way to go here.
int tsearch_helper(int find, int array[], int lo, int hi) {
int bot,top;
/* if nothing to search - easy */
if (lo > hi)
return -1;
/* if only one thing to search it is easy */
if (lo == hi)
return find == array[lo] ? lo : -1;
/* split into three */
bot = (1*(lo+hi))/3; /* bottom third */
top = (2*(lo+hi))/3; /* top third */
/* is it in the bottom part? */
if (find < array[bot])
return tsearch_helper(find,array,lo,bot-1);
/* is it in the middle part */
if (find < array[top])
return tsearch_helper(find,array,bot,top-1);
/* must be in the top part? */
return tsearch_helper(find,array,top,hi);
}
int tsearch(int find, int array[], int count) {
int lo = 0;
int hi = count-1;
return tsearch_helper(find,array,lo,hi);
}
I told you it was tricky. This last one still isn't right--you compute bot and top wrong (although you got them right in a previous version). Here is a *correct* version. The loop invariant technique that Bentley talks about is good for getting this kind of thing right.
int tsearch(int list[], int length, int item)
{
int l=0, u=length-1, m, n;
while (1) {
/* loop invariant: item must be in list[l] .. list[u] */
if (l > u)
return -1;
m = l + (u-l) / 3;
n = l + 2 * (u-l) / 3;
if (item < list[m]) u = m-1;
else if (item == list[m]) return m;
else if (item < list[n]) { l = m+1; u = n-1; }
else if (item == list[n]) return n;
else if (item > list[n]) l = n+1;
}
}
I would be surprised if most C compilers do tail-call optimization--it would be interesting to test a few and see. But the point is well taken: it's better to write your algorithm clearly first, and hand-optimize later (if the routine turns out to be a hot spot).
So does the routine turn out to be a hot spot for newboy?
I agree that thinking in terms of loop invariants is a very good way to approach problems like this.
That may be the most important lesson newboy learns from all this.
Here is the code from page 38 of Bentley's Programming Pearls, translated into C:
int bsearch(int list[], int length, int item)
{
int l=0, u=length-1, m;
while (1) {
/* loop invariant: item must be in list[l] .. list[u] */
if (l > u)
return -1;
m = (l+u) / 2;
if (list[m] < item) l = m + 1;
else if (list[m] == item) return m;
else if (list[m] > item) u = m-1;
}
}
I suppose it could be turned into a ternary search by splitting the list three ways and expanding the list of cases... but it would probably be a little tricky to get right (binary search is famous for being incorrectly implemented). Ah... that's probably what your homework assignment is. Well, good luck to you, and go read Bentley's essay--it will help you get it right.