Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Iterative version of a recursive algorithm is slower

I'm trying to implement an iterative version of Tarjan's strongly connected components (SCCs), reproduced here for your convenience (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarjan%27s_strongly_connected_components_algorithm).

Input: Graph G = (V, E)

index = 0                         // DFS node number counter 
S = empty                         // An empty stack of nodes
forall v in V do
  if (v.index is undefined)       // Start a DFS at each node
    tarjan(v)                     // we haven't visited yet

procedure tarjan(v)
  v.index = index                 // Set the depth index for v
  v.lowlink = index
  index = index + 1
  S.push(v)                       // Push v on the stack
  forall (v, v') in E do          // Consider successors of v
    if (v'.index is undefined)    // Was successor v' visited?
        tarjan(v')                // Recurse
        v.lowlink = min(v.lowlink, v'.lowlink)
    else if (v' is in S)          // Was successor v' in stack S? 
        v.lowlink = min(v.lowlink, v'.lowlink )
  if (v.lowlink == v.index)       // Is v the root of an SCC?
    print "SCC:"
    repeat
      v' = S.pop
      print v'
    until (v' == v)

My iterative version uses the following Node struct.

struct Node {
    int id; //Signed int up to 2^31 - 1 = 2,147,483,647
    int index;
    int lowlink;        
    Node *caller;                    //If you were looking at the recursive version, this is the node before the recursive call
    unsigned int vindex;             //Equivalent to the iterator in the for-loop in tarjan
    vector<Node *> *nodeVector;      //Vector of adjacent Nodes 
};

Here's what I did for the iterative version:

 void Graph::runTarjan(int out[]) {  //You can ignore out. It's a 5-element array that keeps track of the largest 5 SCCs
        int index = 0;
tarStack = new stack<Node *>();
    onStack = new bool[numNodes];
  for (int n = 0; n < numNodes; n++) {
    if (nodes[n].index == unvisited) {
      tarjan_iter(&nodes[n], index);
    }
  }
}

void Graph::tarjan_iter(Node *u, int &index) {
    u->index = index;
    u->lowlink = index;
    index++;
    u->vindex = 0; 
    tarStack->push(u);
    u->caller = NULL;           //Equivalent to the node from which the recursive call would spawn.
    onStack[u->id - 1] = true;
    Node *last = u;
    while(true) {
        if(last->vindex < last->nodeVector->size()) {       //Equivalent to the check in the for-loop in the recursive version
            Node *w = (*(last->nodeVector))[last->vindex];
            last->vindex++;                                   //Equivalent to incrementing the iterator in the for-loop in the recursive version
            if(w->index == unvisited) {
                w->caller = last;                     
                w->vindex = 0;
                w->index = index;
                w->lowlink = index;
                index++;
                tarStack->push(w);
                onStack[w->id - 1] = true;
                last = w;
            } else if(onStack[w->id - 1] == true) {
                last->lowlink = min(last->lowlink, w->index);
            }
        } else {  //Equivalent to the nodeSet iterator pointing to end()
            if(last->lowlink == last->index) {
                numScc++;
                Node *top = tarStack->top();
                tarStack->pop();
                onStack[top->id - 1] = false;
                int size = 1;

                while(top->id != last->id) {
                    top = tarStack->top();
                    tarStack->pop();
                    onStack[top->id - 1] = false;
                    size++;
                }
                insertNewSCC(size);  //Ranks the size among array of 5 elements
            }

            Node *newLast = last->caller;   //Go up one recursive call
            if(newLast != NULL) {
                newLast->lowlink = min(newLast->lowlink, last->lowlink);
                last = newLast;
            } else {   //We've seen all the nodes
                break;
            }
        }
    }
}

My iterative version runs and gives me the same output as the recursive version. The problem is that the iterative version is slower, and I'm not sure why. Can anyone give me some insight on my implementation? Is there a better way to implement the recursive algorithm iteratively?

like image 610
user5243421 Avatar asked Feb 18 '10 21:02

user5243421


People also ask

Is recursive slower than iterative?

Recursion has a large amount of overhead as compared to Iteration. It is usually much slower because all function calls must be stored in a stack to allow the return back to the caller functions.

Is iterative faster than recursion?

Iteration can be used to repeatedly execute a set of statements without the overhead of function calls and without using stack memory. Iteration is faster and more efficient than recursion. It's easier to optimize iterative codes, and they generally have polynomial time complexity.

Why is recursive slower than their iterative counterparts?

Because of extra stack manipulation, recursive versions of functions often run slower and use more memory than their iterative counterparts.

Are recursive algorithms slower?

Recursion is slower and it consumes more memory since it can fill up the stack. But there is a work-around called tail-call optimization which requires a little more complex code (since you need another parameter to the function to pass around) but is more efficient since it doesn't fill the stack.


1 Answers

A recursive algorithm uses the stack as storage area. In the iterative version, you use some vectors, which themselves rely on heap allocation. Stack-based allocation is known to be very fast, since it is only a matter of moving an end-of-stack pointer, whereas heap allocation may be substantially slower. That the iterative version is slower is not fully surprising.

Generally speaking, if the problem at hand fits well within a stack-only recursive model, then, by all means, recurse.

like image 184
Thomas Pornin Avatar answered Nov 10 '22 07:11

Thomas Pornin