Upper and lower time bounds for parallel random access machines without simultaneous writes
SIAM Journal on Computing
Parallel symmetry-breaking in sparse graphs
SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics
Sorting in c log n parallel steps
Combinatorica
Tight bounds on the complexity of parallel sorting
IEEE Transactions on Computers
Matching partition a linked list and its optimization
SPAA '89 Proceedings of the first annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures
An optimal linked list prefix algorithms on a local memory computer
CSC '89 Proceedings of the 17th conference on ACM Annual Computer Science Conference
An introduction to parallel algorithms
An introduction to parallel algorithms
Implementations of randomized sorting on large parallel machines
SPAA '92 Proceedings of the fourth annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures
STOC '95 Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Improved parallel integer sorting without concurrent writing
Information and Computation
Improved fast interger sorting in linear space
Information and Computation
Parallel Integer Sorting Is More Efficient Than Parallel Comparison Sorting on Exclusive Write PRAMs
SIAM Journal on Computing
A logarithmic time sort for linear size networks
STOC '83 Proceedings of the fifteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
The Complexity of Parallel Computations
The Complexity of Parallel Computations
Deterministic sorting in O(nlog logn) time and linear space
Journal of Algorithms
An optimal parallel algorithm for integer sorting
SFCS '85 Proceedings of the 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
SFCS '93 Proceedings of the 1993 IEEE 34th Annual Foundations of Computer Science
Hi-index | 0.00 |
We present a more efficient CREW PRAM algorithm for integer sorting. This algorithm sorts n integers in { 0, 1, 2, ..., n 1/2} in O ((logn )3/2/loglogn ) time and O (n (logn /loglogn )1/2) operations. It also sorts n integers in {0, 1, 2,..., n −1} in O ((logn )3/2/loglogn ) time and O (n (logn /loglogn )1/2logloglogn ) operations. Previous best algorithm [13] on both cases has time complexity O (logn ) but operation complexity O (n (logn )1/2).