 Home Libraries People FAQ More

### Complexity

##### Complexity of element containers

Since element containers `std::set` and `icl::map` are only extensions of stl::set and stl::map, their complexity characteristics are accordingly. So their major operations insertion (addition), deletion and search are all using logarithmic time.

##### Complexity of interval containers

The operations on interval containers behave differently due to the fact that intervals unlike elements can overlap any number of other intervals in a container. As long as intervals are relatively small or just singleton, interval containers behave like containers of elements. For large intervals however time consumption of operations on interval containers may be worse, because most or all intervals of a container may have to be visited. As an example, time complexity of Addition on interval containers is briefly discussed.

More information on complexity characteristics of icl's functions is contained in section Function Reference

###### Time Complexity of Addition

The next table gives the time complexities for the overloaded `operator +=` on interval containers. The instance types of `T` are given as column headers. Instances of type parameter `P` are denoted in the second column. The third column contains the specific kind of complexity statement. If column three is empty worst case complexity is given in the related row.

Table 1.15. Time Complexity of Addition:

`P`

interval
set

separate
interval
set

split
interval
set

interval
map

split
interval
map

```T& operator +=(T& object, const P& addend)```

`T::element_type`

O(log n)

O(log n)

O(log n)

O(log n)

O(log n)

`T::segment_type`

best case

O(log n)

O(log n)

O(log n)

O(log n)

O(log n)

worst case

O(n)

O(n)

O(n)

O(n)

O(n)

amortized

O(log n)

O(log n)

`interval_sets`

O(m log(n+m))

O(m log(n+m))

O(m log(n+m))

`interval_maps`

O(m log(n+m))

O(m log(n+m))

Adding an element or element value pair is always done in logarithmic time, where n is the number of intervals in the interval container. The same row of complexities applies to the insertion of a segment (an interval or an interval value pair) in the best case, where the inserted segment does overlap with only a small number of intervals in the container.

In the worst case, where the inserted segment overlaps with all intervals in the container, the algorithms iterate over all the overlapped segments. Using inplace manipulations of segments and hinted inserts, it is possible to perform all necessary operations on each iteration step in constant time. This results in linear worst case time complexity for segment addition for all interval containers.

After performing a worst case addition for an `interval_set` or a `separate_interval_sets` adding an interval that overlaps n intervals, we need n non overlapping additions of logarithmic time before we can launch another O(n) worst case addition. So we have only a logarithmic amortized time for the addition of an interval or interval value pair.

For the addition of interval containers complexity is O(m log(n+m)). So for the worst case, where the container sizes n and m are equal and both containers cover the same ranges, the complexity of container addition is loglinear. For other cases, that occur frequently in real world applications performance can be much better. If the added container `operand` is much smaller than `object` and the intervals in `operand` are relatively small, performance can be logarithmic. If m is small compared with n and intervals in `operand` are large, performance tends to be linear.