Sorting methods that decide the order by comparing elements with each other, like checking if one number is bigger or smaller than another.
Click to reveal answer
beginner
Name two common comparison based sorting algorithms.
Bubble Sort and Quick Sort are examples of comparison based sorting algorithms.
Click to reveal answer
beginner
What is non comparison based sorting?
Sorting methods that do not compare elements directly but use other properties like counting or digit positions to sort, such as counting sort or radix sort.
Click to reveal answer
intermediate
Why can non comparison based sorting be faster than comparison based sorting?
Because they use special tricks like counting or grouping elements, they can sort in linear time when conditions are right, instead of needing many comparisons.
Click to reveal answer
intermediate
What is the best possible time complexity for comparison based sorting?
The best possible time complexity for comparison based sorting is O(n log n), meaning it cannot be faster than that in general.
Click to reveal answer
Which sorting method uses direct element comparisons?
ACounting sort
BNon comparison based sorting
CComparison based sorting
DRadix sort
✗ Incorrect
Comparison based sorting relies on comparing elements to decide order.
Which sorting algorithm is an example of non comparison based sorting?
ACounting sort
BMerge sort
CQuick sort
DHeap sort
✗ Incorrect
Counting sort uses counting of elements and does not compare them directly.
What is the lower bound time complexity for comparison based sorting?
AO(n log n)
BO(n)
CO(n^2)
DO(log n)
✗ Incorrect
Comparison based sorting cannot be faster than O(n log n) in general.
Which sorting method can achieve linear time complexity under certain conditions?
ABubble sort
BInsertion sort
CSelection sort
DNon comparison based sorting
✗ Incorrect
Non comparison based sorting like counting sort can run in O(n) time if input conditions are met.
Radix sort is an example of:
AComparison based sorting
BNon comparison based sorting
CDivide and conquer sorting
DIn-place sorting
✗ Incorrect
Radix sort sorts numbers by digits without comparing elements directly.
Explain the main difference between comparison based and non comparison based sorting.
Think about how the sorting decides order.
You got /3 concepts.
List examples of comparison based and non comparison based sorting algorithms and their typical time complexities.
Recall common sorting algorithms and their categories.
You got /2 concepts.
Practice
(1/5)
1. Which of the following sorting algorithms is not comparison based?
easy
A. Heap Sort
B. Merge Sort
C. Counting Sort
D. Quick Sort
Solution
Step 1: Understand comparison based sorting
Comparison based sorting algorithms decide order by comparing elements pairwise, like Merge Sort, Quick Sort, and Heap Sort.
Step 2: Identify non-comparison based sorting
Counting Sort uses element values as indices to count occurrences, not comparisons.
Final Answer:
Counting Sort -> Option C
Quick Check:
Counting Sort is non-comparison based [OK]
Hint: Counting Sort uses counts, not comparisons [OK]
Common Mistakes:
Confusing Quick Sort as non-comparison
Thinking Heap Sort is non-comparison
Assuming all sorts use counting
2. Which of the following is the correct syntax to call Radix Sort function named radixSort on an integer array arr of size n in C++?
easy
A. radixSort(arr, n);
B. radixSort(n, arr);
C. radixSort(arr);
D. radixSort(&arr, n);
Solution
Step 1: Understand typical function parameters
Sorting functions usually take the array and its size as parameters, in that order.
Step 2: Match syntax with parameters
radixSort(arr, n); passes array and size correctly. radixSort(n, arr); reverses order, C misses size, D passes address incorrectly.
Final Answer:
radixSort(arr, n); -> Option A
Quick Check:
Array then size is standard [OK]
Hint: Array first, size second in sorting calls [OK]
Common Mistakes:
Swapping parameter order
Omitting size parameter
Passing address of array incorrectly
3. What will be the output of the following C++ code snippet?
int arr[] = {4, 2, 7, 1};
int n = 4;
// Using Counting Sort
void countingSort(int arr[], int n) {
int max_val = 7;
int count[8] = {0};
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) count[arr[i]]++;
int index = 0;
for (int i = 0; i <= max_val; i++) {
while (count[i]-- > 0) {
arr[index++] = i;
}
}
}
countingSort(arr, n);
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) std::cout << arr[i] << " ";
Loop from 0 to 7, placing elements according to counts: 1, 2, 4, 7.
Final Answer:
1 2 4 7 -> Option D
Quick Check:
Counting Sort outputs sorted array [OK]
Hint: Counting Sort outputs sorted elements in ascending order [OK]
Common Mistakes:
Confusing counting array indices
Not rebuilding array correctly
Assuming original order remains
4. The following code attempts to implement Radix Sort but has a bug. What is the error?
void countingSort(int arr[], int n, int exp) {
int output[n];
int count[10] = {0};
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
count[(arr[i] / exp) % 10]++;
for (int i = 1; i < 10; i++)
count[i] += count[i - 1];
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
output[count[(arr[i] / exp) % 10]] = arr[i];
count[(arr[i] / exp) % 10]--;
}
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
arr[i] = output[i];
}
medium
A. The output array index is off by one in the third loop
B. Count array size should be 100, not 10
C. The count array is not initialized to zero
D. The final copy loop should start from n-1 to 0
Solution
Step 1: Analyze output array indexing in third loop
Indexing uses count[...] directly, but count array is cumulative, so index should be count[...] - 1.
Step 2: Identify correct fix
Subtract 1 from count[...] when indexing output to avoid skipping first position.
Final Answer:
The output array index is off by one in the third loop -> Option A
Quick Check:
Output index = count[...] - 1 needed [OK]
Hint: Output index in counting sort is count[...] - 1 [OK]
Common Mistakes:
Ignoring off-by-one in output indexing
Changing count array size unnecessarily
Not initializing count array
5. You have an array of 1 million integers ranging from 0 to 1000. Which sorting method is the most efficient and why?
hard
A. Quick Sort, because it has average O(n log n) time
B. Counting Sort, because it sorts in O(n + k) where k is small
C. Merge Sort, because it is stable and works well on large data
D. Heap Sort, because it uses constant extra space
Solution
Step 1: Analyze input size and range
Array size n=1,000,000; range k=1001 (0 to 1000).
Step 2: Compare sorting complexities
Counting Sort runs in O(n + k) which is about 1,001,000 steps, faster than O(n log n) for comparison sorts.
Final Answer:
Counting Sort, because it sorts in O(n + k) where k is small -> Option B
Quick Check:
Small range + large n favors Counting Sort [OK]
Hint: Small range with large n? Use Counting Sort [OK]
Common Mistakes:
Choosing Quick Sort ignoring range
Preferring stable sort without need
Ignoring Counting Sort efficiency on small range
Recommended
Ready to prove it?
Pass the test and this pattern moves unknownstrongwhile earning +1 Grip toward your certificate.