Please tell the complexity of http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/maximum-bipartite-matching/ ?
And if we use directly Ford-Fulkerson Algorithm, will it be better?
№ | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3880 |
2 | jiangly | 3669 |
3 | ecnerwala | 3654 |
4 | Benq | 3627 |
5 | orzdevinwang | 3612 |
6 | Geothermal | 3569 |
6 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
8 | jqdai0815 | 3532 |
9 | Radewoosh | 3522 |
10 | gyh20 | 3447 |
Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
№ | Пользователь | Вклад |
---|---|---|
1 | awoo | 161 |
2 | maomao90 | 160 |
3 | adamant | 156 |
4 | maroonrk | 153 |
5 | -is-this-fft- | 148 |
5 | atcoder_official | 148 |
5 | SecondThread | 148 |
8 | Petr | 147 |
9 | nor | 144 |
9 | TheScrasse | 144 |
Please tell the complexity of http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/maximum-bipartite-matching/ ?
And if we use directly Ford-Fulkerson Algorithm, will it be better?
Название |
---|
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.