# 11.2: Counting Sort and Radix Sort

$$\newcommand{\vecs}{\overset { \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} }$$ $$\newcommand{\vecd}{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}}$$$$\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$$ $$\newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$$ $$\newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$$ $$\newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$$ $$\newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$$ $$\newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$$ $$\newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$$ $$\newcommand{\norm}{\| #1 \|}$$ $$\newcommand{\inner}{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$$ $$\newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$$ $$\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$$ $$\newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$$ $$\newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$$ $$\newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$$ $$\newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$$ $$\newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$$ $$\newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$$ $$\newcommand{\norm}{\| #1 \|}$$ $$\newcommand{\inner}{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$$ $$\newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$$$$\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$$

In this section we study two sorting algorithms that are not comparison-based. Specialized for sorting small integers, these algorithms elude the lower-bounds of Theorem 11.1.5 by using (parts of) the elements in $$\mathtt{a}$$ as indices into an array. Consider a statement of the form

$\mathtt{c[a[i]]} = 1 \enspace . \nonumber$

This statement executes in constant time, but has $$\texttt{c.length}$$ possible different outcomes, depending on the value of $$\mathtt{a[i]}$$. This means that the execution of an algorithm that makes such a statement cannot be modelled as a binary tree. Ultimately, this is the reason that the algorithms in this section are able to sort faster than comparison-based algorithms.

## $$\PageIndex{1}$$ Counting Sort

Suppose we have an input array $$\mathtt{a}$$ consisting of $$\mathtt{n}$$ integers, each in the range $$0,\ldots,\mathtt{k}-1$$. The counting-sort algorithm sorts $$\mathtt{a}$$ using an auxiliary array $$\mathtt{c}$$ of counters. It outputs a sorted version of $$\mathtt{a}$$ as an auxiliary array $$\mathtt{b}$$.

The idea behind counting-sort is simple: For each $$\mathtt{i}\in\{0,\ldots,\mathtt{k}-1\}$$, count the number of occurrences of $$\mathtt{i}$$ in $$\mathtt{a}$$ and store this in $$\mathtt{c[i]}$$. Now, after sorting, the output will look like $$\mathtt{c}$$ occurrences of 0, followed by $$\mathtt{c}$$ occurrences of 1, followed by $$\mathtt{c}$$ occurrences of 2,..., followed by $$\mathtt{c[k-1]}$$ occurrences of $$\mathtt{k-1}$$. The code that does this is very slick, and its execution is illustrated in Figure $$\PageIndex{1}$$:

    int[] countingSort(int[] a, int k) {
int c[] = new int[k];
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++)
c[a[i]]++;
for (int i = 1; i < k; i++)
c[i] += c[i-1];
int b[] = new int[a.length];
for (int i = a.length-1; i >= 0; i--)
b[--c[a[i]]] = a[i];
return b;
} Figure $$\PageIndex{1}$$: The operation of counting sort on an array of length $$\mathtt{n}=20$$ that stores integers $$0,\ldots,\mathtt{k}-1=9$$.

The first $$\mathtt{for}$$ loop in this code sets each counter $$\mathtt{c[i]}$$ so that it counts the number of occurrences of $$\mathtt{i}$$ in $$\mathtt{a}$$. By using the values of $$\mathtt{a}$$ as indices, these counters can all be computed in $$O(\mathtt{n})$$ time with a single for loop. At this point, we could use $$\mathtt{c}$$ to fill in the output array $$\mathtt{b}$$ directly. However, this would not work if the elements of $$\mathtt{a}$$ have associated data. Therefore we spend a little extra effort to copy the elements of $$\mathtt{a}$$ into $$\mathtt{b}$$.

The next $$\mathtt{for}$$ loop, which takes $$O(\mathtt{k})$$ time, computes a running-sum of the counters so that $$\mathtt{c[i]}$$ becomes the number of elements in $$\mathtt{a}$$ that are less than or equal to $$\mathtt{i}$$. In particular, for every $$\mathtt{i}\in\{0,\ldots,\mathtt{k}-1\}$$, the output array, $$\mathtt{b}$$, will have

$\mathtt{b[c[i-1]]}=\mathtt{b[c[i-1]+1]=}\cdots=\mathtt{b[c[i]-1]}=\mathtt{i} \enspace . \nonumber$

Finally, the algorithm scans $$\mathtt{a}$$ backwards to place its elements, in order, into an output array $$\mathtt{b}$$. When scanning, the element $$\mathtt{a[i]=j}$$ is placed at location $$\mathtt{b[c[j]-1]}$$ and the value $$\mathtt{c[j]}$$ is decremented.

Theorem $$\PageIndex{1}$$.

The $$\mathtt{countingSort(a,k)}$$ method can sort an array $$\mathtt{a}$$ containing $$\mathtt{n}$$ integers in the set $$\{0,\ldots,\mathtt{k}-1\}$$ in $$O(\mathtt{n}+\mathtt{k})$$ time.

The counting-sort algorithm has the nice property of being stable; it preserves the relative order of equal elements. If two elements $$\mathtt{a[i]}$$ and $$\mathtt{a[j]}$$ have the same value, and $$\mathtt{i}<\mathtt{j}$$ then $$\mathtt{a[i]}$$ will appear before $$\mathtt{a[j]}$$ in $$\mathtt{b}$$. This will be useful in the next section.

## $$\PageIndex{2}$$ Radix-Sort

Counting-sort is very efficient for sorting an array of integers when the length, $$\mathtt{n}$$, of the array is not much smaller than the maximum value, $$\mathtt{k}-1$$, that appears in the array. The radix-sort algorithm, which we now describe, uses several passes of counting-sort to allow for a much greater range of maximum values.

Radix-sort sorts $$\mathtt{w}$$-bit integers by using $$\mathtt{w}/\mathtt{d}$$ passes of counting-sort to sort these integers $$\mathtt{d}$$ bits at a time.2 More precisely, radix sort first sorts the integers by their least significant $$\mathtt{d}$$ bits, then their next significant $$\mathtt{d}$$ bits, and so on until, in the last pass, the integers are sorted by their most significant $$\mathtt{d}$$ bits.

    int[] radixSort(int[] a) {
int[] b = null;
for (int p = 0; p < w/d; p++) {
int c[] = new int[1<<d];
// the next three for loops implement counting-sort
b = new int[a.length];
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++)
c[(a[i] >> d*p)&((1<<d)-1)]++;
for (int i = 1; i < 1<<d; i++)
c[i] += c[i-1];
for (int i = a.length-1; i >= 0; i--)
b[--c[(a[i] >> d*p)&((1<<d)-1)]] = a[i];
a = b;
}
return b;
}


(In this code, the expression $$\mathtt{(a[i]\text{>>}d*p)\text{&}((1\text{<<}d)-1)}$$ extracts the integer whose binary representation is given by bits $$(\mathtt{p}+1)\mathtt{d}-1,\ldots,\mathtt{p}\mathtt{d}$$ of $$\mathtt{a[i]}$$.) An example of the steps of this algorithm is shown in Figure $$\PageIndex{2}$$. Figure $$\PageIndex{2}$$: Using radixsort to sort $$\mathtt{w}=8$$-bit integers by using 4 passes of counting sort on $$\mathtt{d}=2$$-bit integers.

This remarkable algorithm sorts correctly because counting-sort is a stable sorting algorithm. If $$\mathtt{x} < \mathtt{y}$$ are two elements of $$\mathtt{a}$$, and the most significant bit at which $$\mathtt{x}$$ differs from $$\mathtt{y}$$ has index $$r$$, then $$\mathtt{x}$$ will be placed before $$\mathtt{y}$$ during pass $$\lfloor r/\mathtt{d}\rfloor$$ and subsequent passes will not change the relative order of $$\mathtt{x}$$ and $$\mathtt{y}$$.

Radix-sort performs $$\mathtt{w/d}$$ passes of counting-sort. Each pass requires $$O(\mathtt{n}+2^{\mathtt{d}})$$ time. Therefore, the performance of radix-sort is given by the following theorem.

Theorem $$\PageIndex{2}$$.

For any integer $$\mathtt{d}>0$$, the $$\mathtt{radixSort(a,k)}$$ method can sort an array $$\mathtt{a}$$ containing $$\mathtt{n}$$ $$\mathtt{w}$$-bit integers in $$O((\mathtt{w}/\mathtt{d})(\mathtt{n}+2^{\mathtt{d}}))$$ time.

If we think, instead, of the elements of the array being in the range $$\{0,\ldots,\mathtt{n}^c-1\}$$, and take $$\mathtt{d}=\lceil\log\mathtt{n}\rceil$$ we obtain the following version of Theorem $$\PageIndex{2}$$.

Corollary $$\PageIndex{1}$$.

The $$\mathtt{radixSort(a,k)}$$ method can sort an array $$\mathtt{a}$$ containing $$\mathtt{n}$$ integer values in the range $$\{0,\ldots,\mathtt{n}^c-1\}$$ in $$O(c\mathtt{n})$$ time.

#### Footnotes

2We assume that $$\mathtt{d}$$ divides $$\mathtt{w}$$, otherwise we can always increase $$\mathtt{w}$$ to $$\mathtt{d}\lceil\mathtt{w}/\mathtt{d}\rceil$$.

This page titled 11.2: Counting Sort and Radix Sort is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Pat Morin (Athabasca University Press) .