Skip to content

Added complexities - #11725

Open
IAteNoodles wants to merge 2 commits into
TheAlgorithms:masterfrom
IAteNoodles:patch-2
Open

Added complexities#11725
IAteNoodles wants to merge 2 commits into
TheAlgorithms:masterfrom
IAteNoodles:patch-2

Conversation

@IAteNoodles

@IAteNoodles IAteNoodles commented Oct 4, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Describe your change:

Added the various complexities for the quick sort algorithm

  • Add an algorithm?
  • Fix a bug or typo in an existing algorithm?
  • Add or change doctests? -- Note: Please avoid changing both code and tests in a single pull request.
  • Documentation change?

Checklist:

  • I have read CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • This pull request is all my own work -- I have not plagiarized.
  • I know that pull requests will not be merged if they fail the automated tests.
  • This PR only changes one algorithm file. To ease review, please open separate PRs for separate algorithms.
  • All new Python files are placed inside an existing directory.
  • All filenames are in all lowercase characters with no spaces or dashes.
  • All functions and variable names follow Python naming conventions.
  • All function parameters and return values are annotated with Python type hints.
  • All functions have doctests that pass the automated testing.
  • All new algorithms include at least one URL that points to Wikipedia or another similar explanation.
  • If this pull request resolves one or more open issues then the description above includes the issue number(s) with a closing keyword: "Fixes #ISSUE-NUMBER".

Comment thread sorts/quick_sort.py
Comment on lines +35 to +37
Space Complexity:
Best Case: O(log n)
Worst Case: O(n)

@tianyizheng02 tianyizheng02 Oct 4, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure if this space complexity analysis is accurate for this specific implementation. From Wikipedia, it seems like the $O(\log n)$ space complexity may only hold for a quick sort implementation that performs partitioning in place (though I may be wrong here). This Python implementation doesn't do in-place partitioning.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, the best case is for in place it seems. I rechecked.
Since in place is the best way, should I implement with in-place method?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

#11752 In here I have changed the implementation

@IAteNoodles IAteNoodles mentioned this pull request Oct 4, 2024
15 tasks
Copilot AI lite review requested due to automatic review settings September 12, 2026 08:17
@algorithms-keeper algorithms-keeper Bot added the awaiting reviews This PR is ready to be reviewed label Sep 12, 2026

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🟡 Changes recommended

The documented space bounds do not match the out-of-place recursive implementation.

Get a fresh assessment by requesting another Copilot review.

Pull request overview

This pull request documents the time and space complexity of the existing quick sort implementation.

Changes:

  • Adds best-, average-, and worst-case time complexity.
  • Adds space-complexity documentation.
File summaries
File Description
sorts/quick_sort.py Updates the quick_sort docstring with complexity details.
Review details
  • Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
  • Comments generated: 1
  • Review effort level: Lite

💡 Configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

Comment thread sorts/quick_sort.py
Comment on lines +35 to +37
Space Complexity:
Best Case: O(log n)
Worst Case: O(n)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

awaiting reviews This PR is ready to be reviewed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants