How do I make a query that returns all nodes reachable from a given node along with their distances from there? I'm using Memgraph graph database.
I've tried using
MATCH (n) RETURN n
But it is not what I want.
In Memgraph for an unweighted graph, where the distance is counting hops between nodes, you can use the BFS algorithm:
MATCH path=(n:City {name: 'Berlin'})-[:Road *bfs]->(m)
RETURN m, size(relationships(path));
If you have a weighted graph, use weighted shortest algorithm to calculate the total weight to another node:
MATCH (n:City {name: 'Oulu'})-[:Road *WSHORTEST(r, n | r.length) total_weight]->(m)
RETURN m, total_weight;
To learn more about the syntax and use of these algorithms, head to:
https://memgraph.com/docs/memgraph/reference-guide/built-in-graph-algorithms
Related
In OSMnx, I have a subset of nodes, A, which correspond to the locations of hospitals. For all nodes in my entire graph G I want to calculate which hospital node is closest.
I have considered using osmnx.distance.shortest_path between all possible pairs of nodes, followed by networkx.shortest_path_length but this seems like quite an inefficient.
Is there a more efficient way to do this in OSMnx?
I am supposed to design a recursive algorithm that traverses a tree and sets the cardinality property for every node. The cardinality property is the number of nodes that are in the subtree where the currently traversed node is the root.
Here's my algorithm in pseudo/ python code:
SetCardinality(node)
if node exists:
node.card = 1 + SetCardinality(x.left_child) + SetCardinality(x.right_child)
return node.card
else:
return 0
I'm having a hard time coming up with the recurrence relation that describes this function. I figured out that the worst-case input would be a tree of height = n. I saw on the internet that a recurrent relation for such a tree in this algorithm might be:
T(n) = T(n-1) + n but I don't know how the n in the relation corresponds to the algorithm.
You have to ask yourself: How many nodes does the algorithm visit? You will notice that if you run your algorithm on the root node, it will visit each node exactly once, which is expected as it is essentially a depth-first search.
Therefore, if the rest of your algorithm is constant-time operations, we have a time complexity of O(n) for the total number of nodes n.
Now, if you want to express it in terms of the height of the tree, you need to know more about the given tree. If it's a complete binary tree then the height is O(logn) and therefore the time complexity would be O(2h). But expressing it in terms of total nodes is simpler. Notice also that the shape of the tree does not really matter for your time complexity, as you will be visiting each node exactly once regardless.
There is a theory that says six degrees of seperations is the highest
degree for people to be connected through a chain of acquaintances.
(You know the Baker - Degree of seperation 1, the Baker knows someone
you don't know - Degree of separation 2)
We have a list of People P, list A of corresponding acquaintances
among these people, and a person x
We are trying to implement an algorithm to check if person x respects
the six degrees of separations. It returns true if the distance from x
to all other people in P is at most six, false otherwise.
We are tying to accomplish O(|P| + |A|) in the worst-case.
To implement this algorithm, I thought about implementing an adjacency list over an adjacency matrix to represent the Graph G with vertices P and edges A, because an Adjacency Matrix would take O(n^2) to traverse.
Now I thought about using either BFS or DFS, but I can't seem to find a reason as to why the other is more optimal for this case.
I want to use BFS or DFS to store the distances from x in an array d, and then loop over the array d to look if any Degree is larger than 6.
DFS and BFS have the same Time Complexity, but Depth is better(faster?) in most cases at finding the first Degree larger than 6, whereas Breadth is better at excluding all Degrees > 6 simultaneously.
After DFS or BFS I would then loop over the array containing the distances from person x, and return true if there was no entry >6 and false when one is found.
With BFS, the degrees of separations would always be at the end of the Array, which would maybe lead to a higher time complexity?
With DFS, the degrees of separations would be randomly scattered in the Array, but the chance to have a degree of separation higher than 6 early in the search is higher.
I don't know if it makes any difference to the Time Complexity if using DFS or BFS here.
Time complexity of BFS and DFS is exactly the same. Both methods visit all connected vertices of the graph, so in both cases you have O(V + E), where V is the number of vertices and E is the number of edges.
That being said, sometimes one algorithm can be preferred over the other precisely because the order of vertex visitation is different. For instance, if you were to evaluate a mathematical expression, DFS would be much more convenient.
In your case, BFS could be used to optimize graph traversal, because you can simply cut-off BFS at the required degree of separation level. All the people who have the required (or bigger) degree of separation would be left unmarked as visited.
The same trick would be much more convoluted to implement with DFS, because as you've astutely noticed, DFS first gets "to the bottom" of the graph, and then it goes back recursively (or via stack) up level by level.
I believe that you can use the the Dijkstra algorithm.
Is a BFS approach that updates your path, is the path have a smaller value. Think as distance have always a cost of 1 and, if you have two friends (A and B) for a person N.
Those friends have a common friend C but, in a first time your algorithm checks a distance for friend A with cost 4 and mark as visited, they can't check the friend B that maybe have a distance of 3. The Dijkstra will help you doing checking this.
The Dijkstra solve this in O(|V|+|E|log|V)
See more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra%27s_algorithm
Given a set points P in the plane, and given a threshold t, I'd like to compute a connected graph G to minimize the sum of the lengths of its edges, subject to the following constraints:
The vertices of G contain all the points in P.
For every pair of points u and v in P, their distance in G is no greater than t times their Euclidean distance.
When t=1, this problem is solved by constructing a complete graph on P. When t is infinite (or simply large enough), this problem is the Euclidean Steiner Tree Problem.
If there already a name for this problem, I'm curious what it is. More than that, does anyone have any suggestions for how to make an algorithm for this? Since it contains the Euclidean Steiner Tree Problem as a special case, it can't be simpler, so I'm not looking for anything particularly time efficient. Thanks!
I was asked an interview question today and I was not able to solve at that time.
The question is to get the minimum time complexity of finding the shortest path from node S to node T in a graph G where:
G is undirected and unweighted
The connection factor of G is given as B
The length of shortest path from S to T is given as K
The first thing I thought was that in general case, the BFS is fastest way to get the SP from S to T, in O(V+E) time. Then how can we use the B and K to reduce the time. I'm not sure what a connection factor is, so I asked the interviewer, then he told me that it is on average a node has B edges with other nodes. So I was thinking that if K = 1, then the time complexity should be O(B). But wait, it is "on average", which means it could still be O(E+V), where the graph is a like a star and all other nodes are connected to S.
If we assume that the B is a strict up limit. Then the first round of BFS is O(B), and the second is O(B*B), and so on, like a tree. Some of the nodes in the lower layer may be already visited in the previous round therefore should not be added. Still, the worst scenario is that the graph is huge and none of the node has been visited. And the time complexity is
O(B) + O(B^2) + O(B^3) ... O(B^K)
Using the sum of Geometric Series, the sum is O(B(1-B^K)/(1-B)). But this SUM should not exceed V+E.
So, is the time complexity is O(Min(SUM, V+E))?
I have no idea how to correctly solve this problem. Any help is appreciated.
Your analysis seems correct. Please refer to the following references.
http://axon.cs.byu.edu/~martinez/classes/312/Slides/Paths.pdf
https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs473/sp2011/lectures/03_class.pdf