Results 21 
25 of
25
Priority Queues and Dijkstra’s Algorithm ∗
, 2007
"... We study the impact of using different priority queues in the performance of Dijkstra’s SSSP algorithm. We consider only general priority queues that can handle any type of keys (integer, floating point, etc.); the only exception is that we use as a benchmark the DIMACS Challenge SSSP code [1] which ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We study the impact of using different priority queues in the performance of Dijkstra’s SSSP algorithm. We consider only general priority queues that can handle any type of keys (integer, floating point, etc.); the only exception is that we use as a benchmark the DIMACS Challenge SSSP code [1] which can handle only integer values for distances. Our experiments were focussed on the following: 1. We study the performance of two variants of Dijkstra’s algorithm: the wellknown version that uses a priority queue that supports the DecreaseKey operation, and another that uses a basic priority queue that supports only Insert and DeleteMin. For the latter type of priority queue we include several for which highperformance code is available such as bottomup binary heap, aligned 4ary heap, and sequence heap [33]. 2. We study the performance of Dijkstra’s algorithm designed for flat memory relative to versions that try to be cacheefficient. For this, in main part, we study the difference in performance of Dijkstra’s algorithm relative to the cacheefficiency of the priority queue used, both incore and outofcore. We also study the performance of an implementation
Parallel and Distributed BranchandBound/A* Algorithms
, 1994
"... In this report, we propose new concurrent data structures and load balancing strategies for BranchandBound (B&B)/A* algorithms in two models of parallel programming : shared and distributed memory. For the shared memory model (SMM), we present a general methodology which allows concurrent manipul ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this report, we propose new concurrent data structures and load balancing strategies for BranchandBound (B&B)/A* algorithms in two models of parallel programming : shared and distributed memory. For the shared memory model (SMM), we present a general methodology which allows concurrent manipulations for most tree data structures, and show its usefulness for implementation on multiprocessors with global shared memory. Some priority queues which are suited for basic operations performed by B&B algorithms are described : the Skewheaps, the funnels and the Splaytrees. We also detail a specific data structure, called treap and designed for A* algorithm. These data structures are implemented on a parallel machine with shared memory : KSR1. For the distributed memory model (DMM), we show that the use of partial cost in the B&B algorithms is not enough to balance nodes between the local queues. Thus, we introduce another notion of priority, called potentiality, between nodes that take...
A New Priority Queue for Simulation of Many Objects
"... During the discrete event simulation of complex systems based on many active/passive objects, the efficiency of the algorithm and data structure used to manage the events of the process is crucial. Both runtime and space used are relevant for the study of large systems. A main issue in the simulatio ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
During the discrete event simulation of complex systems based on many active/passive objects, the efficiency of the algorithm and data structure used to manage the events of the process is crucial. Both runtime and space used are relevant for the study of large systems. A main issue in the simulation of these systems are the interactions between pairs of objects. These interactions are treated as events that take place at discrete instants. The event management is performed by using a priority queue in which sequences of events are inserted/deleted in an efficient manner. In this paper we introduce and analyze a new priority queue  called Local Minima  which resembles a hybrid structure between the classical heap and linked lists. We also present empirical results showing that our priority queue is more efficient and stable than other alternatives in the simulation of molecular fluids. Systems with many moving objects  such as molecular fluids  are an important class of applica...
RankPairing Heaps
"... Abstract. We introduce the rankpairing heap, a heap (priority queue) implementation that combines the asymptotic efficiency of Fibonacci heaps with much of the simplicity of pairing heaps. Unlike all other heap implementations that match the bounds of Fibonacci heaps, our structure needs only one c ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We introduce the rankpairing heap, a heap (priority queue) implementation that combines the asymptotic efficiency of Fibonacci heaps with much of the simplicity of pairing heaps. Unlike all other heap implementations that match the bounds of Fibonacci heaps, our structure needs only one cut and no other structural changes per key decrease; the trees representing the heap can evolve to have arbitrary structure. Our initial experiments indicate that rankpairing heaps perform almost as well as pairing heaps on typical input sequences and better on worstcase sequences. 1
Pairing Heaps with Costless Meld
, 903
"... Improving the structure and analysis in [1], we give a variation of the pairing heaps that has amortized zero cost per meld (compared to an O(log log n) in [1]) and the same amortized bounds for all other operations. More precisely, the new pairing heap requires: no cost per meld, O(1) per findmin ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Improving the structure and analysis in [1], we give a variation of the pairing heaps that has amortized zero cost per meld (compared to an O(log log n) in [1]) and the same amortized bounds for all other operations. More precisely, the new pairing heap requires: no cost per meld, O(1) per findmin and insert, O(log n) per deletemin, and O(log log n) per decreasekey. These bounds are the best known for any selfadjusting heap, and match the lower bound proven by Fredman for a family of such heaps. Moreover, our structure is even simpler than that in [1]. 1