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 | jiangly | 3640 |
2 | Benq | 3593 |
3 | tourist | 3572 |
4 | orzdevinwang | 3561 |
5 | cnnfls_csy | 3539 |
6 | ecnerwala | 3534 |
7 | Radewoosh | 3532 |
8 | gyh20 | 3447 |
9 | Rebelz | 3409 |
10 | Geothermal | 3408 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | maomao90 | 173 |
2 | adamant | 164 |
3 | awoo | 161 |
4 | TheScrasse | 160 |
5 | nor | 159 |
6 | maroonrk | 156 |
7 | SecondThread | 152 |
8 | pajenegod | 146 |
9 | BledDest | 144 |
10 | Um_nik | 143 |
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.