Skip to content

Conversation

@dcoudert
Copy link
Contributor

Similarly to #39216, we avoid the conversion to short_digraph when the input graph is an instance of StaticSparseBackend.

Furthermore, we use the new PairingHeap_of_n_integers data structure (#39046) instead of a priority_queue to emulate a max-heap. This is slightly faster this way and cleaner.

📝 Checklist

  • The title is concise and informative.
  • The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
  • I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
  • I have created tests covering the changes.
  • I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation preview.

⌛ Dependencies

@dcoudert
Copy link
Contributor Author

Some timings to see the (small) advantage of using the pairing heap data structure.

Before

sage: G = graphs.PathGraph(4)
sage: %timeit G.maximum_cardinality_search(initial_vertex=0)
9.77 µs ± 16.9 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100,000 loops each)
sage: G = graphs.Grid2dGraph(10, 10)
sage: %timeit G.maximum_cardinality_search()
209 µs ± 1.53 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1,000 loops each)
sage: G = graphs.Grid2dGraph(100, 100)
sage: %timeit G.maximum_cardinality_search()
87.2 ms ± 462 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
sage: G = graphs.CompleteGraph(10)
sage: %timeit G.maximum_cardinality_search()
27 µs ± 85.9 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10,000 loops each)
sage: G = graphs.Cell600()
sage: %timeit G.maximum_cardinality_search()
355 µs ± 1.6 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1,000 loops each)

With this PR:

sage: G = graphs.PathGraph(4)
sage: %timeit G.maximum_cardinality_search(initial_vertex=0)
9.74 µs ± 32.6 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100,000 loops each)
sage: G = graphs.Grid2dGraph(10, 10)
sage: %timeit G.maximum_cardinality_search()
206 µs ± 371 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1,000 loops each)
sage: G = graphs.Grid2dGraph(100, 100)
sage: %timeit G.maximum_cardinality_search()
85.9 ms ± 363 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
sage: G = graphs.CompleteGraph(10)
sage: %timeit G.maximum_cardinality_search()
25.4 µs ± 36.5 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10,000 loops each)
sage: G = graphs.Cell600()
sage: %timeit G.maximum_cardinality_search()
324 µs ± 1.2 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1,000 loops each)

@dcoudert dcoudert self-assigned this Dec 28, 2024
@github-actions
Copy link

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 438865c; changes) is ready! 🎉
This preview will update shortly after each push to this PR.

Copy link
Collaborator

@tscrim tscrim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

@dcoudert
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you for the review.

vbraun pushed a commit to vbraun/sage that referenced this pull request Jan 1, 2025
sagemathgh-39217: improve graph traversal methods
    
Similarly to sagemath#39216, we avoid the conversion to `short_digraph` when the
input graph is an instance of `StaticSparseBackend`.

Furthermore, we use the new `PairingHeap_of_n_integers` data structure
(sagemath#39046) instead of a `priority_queue` to emulate a max-heap. This is
slightly faster this way and cleaner.


### 📝 Checklist

<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->

- [x] The title is concise and informative.
- [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
- [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
- [x] I have created tests covering the changes.
- [ ] I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation
preview.

### ⌛ Dependencies

<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on. For example,
-->
<!-- - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency -->
<!-- - sagemath#34567: ... -->
    
URL: sagemath#39217
Reported by: David Coudert
Reviewer(s): Travis Scrimshaw
@vbraun vbraun merged commit 6c348ba into sagemath:develop Jan 4, 2025
22 of 24 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants