Please tell the complexity of http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/maximum-bipartite-matching/ ?
And if we use directly Ford-Fulkerson Algorithm, will it be better?
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | ecnerwala | 3650 |
2 | Benq | 3582 |
3 | Geothermal | 3570 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3570 |
5 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
6 | tourist | 3565 |
7 | maroonrk | 3532 |
8 | Radewoosh | 3522 |
9 | Um_nik | 3483 |
10 | jiangly | 3468 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | maomao90 | 174 |
2 | awoo | 164 |
3 | adamant | 163 |
4 | TheScrasse | 159 |
5 | nor | 158 |
6 | maroonrk | 156 |
7 | -is-this-fft- | 151 |
8 | SecondThread | 147 |
9 | orz | 146 |
10 | pajenegod | 145 |
Please tell the complexity of http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/maximum-bipartite-matching/ ?
And if we use directly Ford-Fulkerson Algorithm, will it be better?
Name |
---|
Maximum Bipartite Matching with Ford-Fulkerson takes O(VE) time. Using Dinic instead of Ford-Fulkerson (or Edmonds Karp for that matter; note that Edmonds Karp always find the shortest augmenting path instead of finding a random path), you can achieve a complexity of .
Can you plz explain the complexity of the link I provided?
Secondly when and how Ford-Fulkerson Algorithm becomes better?
In the link, the bipartite matching is done using Ford-Fulkerson, so the complexity is O(VE).
I don't understand your second question.
A very good source to learn Max-Flow is CLRS. There's an entire chapter dedicated to network flows. You should read it.