**Space and Time Trade-off**

The idea is to preprocess the problem’s input, in whole or in part,

and store the additional information obtained to accelerate solving
the problem afterward. We call this approach input enhancement.

The following algorithms based on it:-

1) Counting Method for sorting
2) Boyer-Moore algorithm for string matching and its simplified
version suggested by Horspool.

The other type of technique that exploits space-for-time trade-

offs simply uses extra space to facilitate faster and/or more flexible
access to the data. We call this approach prestructuring.

This name highlights two facets of this variation of the space-for-

time trade-off: some processing is done before a problem in
question is actually solved but, unlike the input-enhancement
variety, it deals with access
structuring. We illustrate this approach by:

1) Hashing
2) Indexing With B-trees

There is one more algorithm design technique related to the space-

for-time
trade-off idea: dynamic programming. This strategy is based on
recording solutions to overlapping subproblems of a given
problem in a table from which a solution to the problem in question
is then obtained.

A.1) Sorting by Counting:-

As a first example of applying the input-enhancement technique,

we discuss its application to the sorting problem.

One rather obvious idea is to count, for each element of a list to be

sorted, the total number of elements smaller than this element and
record the results in a table.
These numbers will indicate the positions of the elements in the
sorted list.
Thus, we will be able to sort the list by simply copying its elements
to their
appropriate positions in a new, sorted list. This algorithm is called
comparison counting sort.
Page no.255 In Text-Book PDF(Important Problem Table).
*ALGORITHM:- ComparisonCountingSort(A[0..n − 1])

//Sorts an array by comparison counting

//Input: An array A[0..n − 1] of orderable elements
//Output: Array S[0..n − 1] of A’s elements sorted in nondecreasing
order
for i ← 0 to n − 1 do Count[i] ← 0
for i ← 0 to n − 2 do
for j ← i + 1 to n − 1 do
if A[i] < A[j ]
Count[j ] ← Count[j ] + 1
else Count[i] ← Count[i] + 1
for i ← 0 to n − 1 do S[Count[i]] ← A[i]
return S

*Efficiency Of Algorithm.
Text book Pdf Page no.255
See only c(n) = part

It should be quadratic because the algorithm considers all the

different pairs of an n-element array. More formally, the number of
times its basic operation, the comparison A[i] < A[j ], is executed
is equal to the sum we have encountered several times already.

Thus, the algorithm makes the same number of key comparisons as

selection sort and in addition uses a linear amount of extra space.
On the positive side, the algorithm makes the minimum number of
key moves possible, placing each of them directly in their final
position in a sorted array.

The counting idea does work productively in a situation in which

elements to be sorted belong to a known small set of values.

Assume, for example, that we have to sort a list whose values can
be either 1 or 2. Rather than applying a general sorting algorithm,
we should be able to take advantage of this additional information
about values to be sorted.
Indeed, we can scan the list to compute the number of 1’s and the
number of 2’s in it and then, on the second pass, simply make the
appropriate number of the first elements equal to 1 and the
remaining elements equal to 2.
More generally, if element values are integers between some lower
bound l and upper bound u, we can compute the frequency
of each of those values and store them in array F [0..u − l].

Then the first F [0] positions in the sorted list must be filled with l,
the next F [1] positions with l + 1, and so on.

All this can be done, of course, only if we can overwrite the given
elements.

Let us consider a more realistic situation of sorting a list of items

with some other information associated with their keys so that we
cannot overwrite the list’s elements.

Then we can copy elements into a new array S[0..n − 1]to hold the
sorted list as follows.

The elements of A whose values are equal to the lowest possible

value l are copied into the first F [0] elements of S,
i.e., positions 0 through F [0] − 1;
the elements of value l + 1 are copied to positions from F [0] to (F
[0] + F [1]) − 1; and so on.

Since such accumulated sums of frequencies are called a

distribution in statistics, the method itself is known as distribution
counting.

ALGORITHM Distribution : - CountingSort(A[0..n − 1], l, u)

//Sorts an array of integers from a limited range by
distribution counting
//Input: An array A[0..n − 1] of integers between l and u (l ≤ u)
//Output: Array S[0..n − 1] of A’s elements sorted in nondecreasing
order

for j ← 0 to u − l do D[j ] ← 0
//initialize frequencies
for i ← 0 to n − 1 do D[A[i] − l] ← D[A[i] − l] + 1 //compute
frequencies
for j ← 1 to u − l do D[j ] ← D[j − 1] + D[j ]
//reuse for distribution
for i ← n − 1 downto 0 do
j ← A[i] − l
S[D[j ] − 1] ← A[i]
D[j ] ← D[j ] − 1
return S

**Figure 7.2 numerical on page no.257

Assuming that the range of array values is fixed, this is obviously a

linear algorithm because it makes just two consecutive passes
through its input array A.

This is a better time-efficiency class than that of the most efficient

sorting algorithms—mergesort, quicksort, and heapsort—we have
encountered.

It is important to remember, however, that this efficiency is

obtained by exploiting the specific nature of inputs for which sorting
by distribution counting works, in addition to trading space for time.

A.2) Input Enhancement in String Matching :-

The problem of string matching requires finding an occurrence of a
given string of m characters called the pattern in a longer string of
n characters called the text.
The brute-force algorithm for this problem simply matches
corresponding pairs of characters in the pattern and the text left to
right and, if a mismatch occurs, shifts the pattern one position to
the right for the next trial.
Since the maximum number of such trials is n − m + 1 and, in the
worst case, m comparisons need to be made on each of them, the
worst-case efficiency of the brute-force algorithm is in the O(nm)
class.
On average, however, we should expect just a few comparisons
before a pattern’s shift, and for random natural-language texts, the
average-case
efficiency indeed turns out to be in O(n + m).

Several faster algorithms have been discovered. Most of them

exploit the
input-enhancement idea: preprocess the pattern to get some
information about it, store this information in a table, and then use
this information during an actual search for the pattern in a given
text.
The principal difference between these two algorithms lies in the
way they
compare characters of a pattern with their counterparts in a text:
the Knuth-Morris-Pratt algorithm does it left to right,
whereas the Boyer-Moore algorithm does it right to left.
Since the latter idea leads to simpler algorithms, it is the only one
that we will pursue here.

Although the underlying idea of the Boyer-Moore algorithm is

simple, its
actual implementation in a working method is less so.

*Horspool’s Algorithm :-

Consider, as an example, searching for the pattern BARBER in some

text:
s0 ... c ...s n−1
BARBER
Starting with the last R of the pattern and moving right to left, we
compare the corresponding pairs of characters in the pattern and
the text. If all the pattern’s characters match successfully, a
matching substring is found. Then the search can be either stopped
altogether or continued if another occurrence of the same pattern is
desired.

If a mismatch occurs, we need to shift the pattern to the right.

Clearly, we
would like to make as large a shift as possible without risking the
possibility of missing a matching substring in the text.

Horspool’s algorithm determines the size of such a shift by looking

at the character c of the text that is aligned against the last
character of the pattern.

Case 1 :- If there are no c’s in the pattern—e.g., c is letter S in our

example
we can safely shift the pattern by its entire length.
S 0 .... S ... s n−1
BARBER
BARBER
Case 2 :- If there are occurrences of character c in the pattern but
it is not the last one there—e.g., c is letter B in our example—the
shift should align the rightmost occurrence of c in the pattern with
the c in the text
S 0 .... B ... s n−1
BARBER
BARBER
Case 3 :- If c happens to be the last character in the pattern but
there are no c’s among its other m − 1 characters—e.g., c is letter R
in our example—the situation is similar to that of Case 1 and the
pattern should be shifted by the entire pattern’s length m:
S 0 .... MER ... s n−1
LEADER
LEADER
Case 4 :- Finally, if c happens to be the last character in the pattern
and there are other c’s among its first m − 1 characters—e.g., c is
letter R in our example the situation is similar to that of Case 2 and
the rightmost occurrence of c among the first m − 1 characters in
the pattern should be aligned with the text’s c:
S 0 .... AR ... s n−1
REORDER
REORDER

These examples clearly demonstrate that right-to-left character

comparisons can lead to farther shifts of the pattern than the shifts
by only one position always made by the brute-force algorithm.

However, if such an algorithm had to check all the characters of the

pattern on every trial, it would lose much of this superiority.
Fortunately, the idea of input enhancement makes repetitive
comparisons unnecessary.

We can precompute shift sizes and store them in a table. The table
will be indexed by all possible characters that can be encountered
in a text, including, for natural language texts, the space,
punctuation symbols, and
other special characters.

The table’s entries will indicate the shift sizes computed by the
formula.

1.the pattern’s length m, if c is not among the first m − 1

characters of the pattern;
t (c) =
2.the distance from the rightmost c among the first m − 1
characters
 of the pattern to its last character, otherwise.

*Horspool’s algorithm :-
Step 1 For a given pattern of length m and the alphabet used in
both the
pattern and text, construct the shift table as described above.
Step 2 Align the pattern against the beginning of the text.
Step 3 Repeat the following until either a matching substring is
found or the pattern reaches beyond the last character of the text.
Starting with the
last character in the pattern, compare the corresponding characters
in
the pattern and text until either all m characters are matched (then
stop) or a mismatching pair is encountered. In the latter case,
retrieve the entry t (c) from the c’s column of the shift table where c
is the text’s character currently aligned against the last character of
the pattern, and shift the pattern by t (c) characters to the right
along the text.

*ALGORITHM HorspoolMatching(P [0..m − 1], T [0..n − 1])

//Implements Horspool’s algorithm for string matching
//Input: Pattern P [0..m − 1] and text T [0..n − 1]
//Output: The index of the left end of the first matching substring
//
or −1 if there are no matches
ShiftTable(P [0..m − 1])
//generate Table of shifts
i←m−1
//position of the pattern’s right end
while i ≤ n − 1 do
k←0
//number of matched characters
while k ≤ m − 1 and P [m − 1 − k] = T [i − k] do
k←k+1
if k = m
return i − m + 1
else i ← i + Table[T [i]]
return −1

**Example on page no 290 of T.B PDF

A simple example can demonstrate that the worst-case efficiency of

Hor-
spool’s algorithm is in O(nm) (Problem 4 in this section’s exercises).
But for
random texts, it is in #(n), and, although in the same efficiency
class, Horspool’s algorithm is obviously faster on average than the
brute-force algorithm.

**Boyer-Moore Algorithm:-