Interview Cake
← course home

You're out of free questions.

Upgrade now

In order to win the prize for most cookies sold, my friend Alice and I are going to merge our Girl Scout Cookies orders and enter as one unit.

Each order is represented by an "order id" (an integer).

We have our lists of orders sorted numerically already, in vectors. Write a function to merge our vectors of orders into one sorted vector.

For example:

const vector<int> myVector {3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 15}; const vector<int> alicesVector {1, 5, 8, 12, 14, 19}; vector<int> mergedVector = mergeVectors(myVector, alicesVector); cout << "["; for (size_t i = 0; i < mergedVector.size(); ++i) { if (i > 0) { cout << ", "; } cout << mergedVector[i]; } cout << "]" << endl; // prints [1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19]

We can do this in time and space.

If you're running a built-in sorting function, your algorithm probably takes time for that sort.

Think about edge cases! What happens when we've merged in all of the elements from one of our vectors but we still have elements to merge in from our other vector?

We could simply concatenate (join together) the two vectors into one, then sort the result:

vector<int> mergeSortedVectors(const vector<int>& myVector, const vector<int>& alicesVector) { vector<int> mergedVector; mergedVector.insert(mergedVector.end(), myVector.cbegin(), myVector.cend()); mergedVector.insert(mergedVector.end(), alicesVector.cbegin(), alicesVector.cend()); sort(mergedVector.begin(), mergedVector.end()); return mergedVector; }

What would the time cost be?

, where n is the total length of our output vector (the sum of the lengths of our inputs).

We can do better. With this algorithm, we're not really taking advantage of the fact that the input vectors are themselves already sorted. How can we save time by using this fact?

A good general strategy for thinking about an algorithm is to try writing out a sample input and performing the operation by hand. If you're stuck, try that!

Since our vectors are sorted, we know they each have their smallest item in the 0th index. So the smallest item overall is in the 0th index of one of our input vectors!

Which 0th element is it? Whichever is smaller!

To start, let's just write a function that chooses the 0th element for our sorted vector.

vector<int> mergeVectors(const vector<int>& myVector, const vector<int>& alicesVector) { // make a vector big enough to fit the elements from both vectors vector<int> mergedVector(myVector.size() + alicesVector.size()); int headOfMyVector = myVector[0]; int headOfAlicesVector = alicesVector[0]; // case: 0th comes from my vector if (headOfMyVector < headOfAlicesVector) { mergedVector[0] = headOfMyVector; } // case: 0th comes from Alice's vector else { mergedVector[0] = headOfAlicesVector; } // eventually we'll want to return the merged vector return mergedVector; }

Okay, good start! That works for finding the 0th element. Now how do we choose the next element?

Let's look at a sample input:

[3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 15] // myVector [1, 5, 8, 12, 14, 19] // alicesVector

To start we took the 0th element from alicesVector and put it in the 0th slot in the output vector:

[3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 15] // myVector [1, 5, 8, 12, 14, 19] // alicesVector [1, x, x, x, x, x] // mergedVector

We need to make sure we don't try to put that 1 in mergedVector again. We should mark it as "already merged" somehow. For now, we can just cross it out:

[3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 15] // myVector [x, 5, 8, 12, 14, 19] // alicesVector [1, x, x, x, x, x] // mergedVector

Or we could even imagine it's removed from the vector:

[3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 15] // myVector [5, 8, 12, 14, 19] // alicesVector [1, x, x, x, x, x] // mergedVector

Now to get our next element we can use the same approach we used to get the 0th element—it's the smallest of the earliest unmerged elements in either vector! In other words, it's the smaller of the leftmost elements in either vector, assuming we've removed the elements we've already merged in.

So in general we could say something like:

  1. We'll start at the beginnings of our input vectors, since the smallest elements will be there.
  2. As we put items in our final mergedVector, we'll keep track of the fact that they're "already merged."
  3. At each step, each vector has a first "not-yet-merged" item.
  4. At each step, the next item to put in the mergedVector is the smaller of those two "not-yet-merged" items!

Can you implement this in code?

vector<int> mergeVectors(const vector<int>& myVector, const vector<int>& alicesVector) { vector<int> mergedVector(myVector.size() + alicesVector.size()); size_t currentIndexAlices = 0; size_t currentIndexMine = 0; size_t currentIndexMerged = 0; while (currentIndexMerged < mergedVector.size()) { int firstUnmergedAlices = alicesVector[currentIndexAlices]; int firstUnmergedMine = myVector[currentIndexMine]; // case: next comes from my array if (firstUnmergedMine < firstUnmergedAlices) { mergedVector[currentIndexMerged] = firstUnmergedMine; ++currentIndexMine; } // case: next comes from Alice's array else { mergedVector[currentIndexMerged] = firstUnmergedAlices; ++currentIndexAlices; } ++currentIndexMerged; } return mergedVector; }

Okay, this algorithm makes sense. To wrap up, we should think about edge cases and check for bugs. What edge cases should we worry about?

Here are some edge cases:

  1. One or both of our input vectors is 0 elements or 1 element
  2. One of our input vectors is longer than the other.
  3. One of our vectors runs out of elements before we're done merging.

Actually, (3) will always happen. In the process of merging our vectors, we'll certainly exhaust one before we exhaust the other.

Does our function handle these cases correctly?

If both vectors are empty, we're fine. But for all other edge cases, we'll get a segfault.

How can we fix this?

We can probably solve these cases at the same time. They're not so different—they just have to do with indexing past the end of vectors.

To start, we could treat each of our vectors being out of elements as a separate case to handle, in addition to the 2 cases we already have. So we have 4 cases total. Can you code that up?

Be sure you check the cases in the right order!

vector<int> mergeVectors(const vector<int>& myVector, const vector<int>& alicesVector) { vector<int> mergedVector(myVector.size() + alicesVector.size()); size_t currentIndexAlices = 0; size_t currentIndexMine = 0; size_t currentIndexMerged = 0; while (currentIndexMerged < mergedVector.size()) { // case: my vector is exhausted if (currentIndexMine >= myVector.size()) { mergedVector[currentIndexMerged] = alicesVector[currentIndexAlices]; ++currentIndexAlices; } // case: Alice's vector is exhausted else if (currentIndexAlices >= alicesVector.size()) { mergedVector[currentIndexMerged] = myVector[currentIndexMine]; ++currentIndexMine; } // case: my item is next else if (myVector[currentIndexMine] < alicesVector[currentIndexAlices]) { mergedVector[currentIndexMerged] = myVector[currentIndexMine]; ++currentIndexMine; } // case: Alice's item is next else { mergedVector[currentIndexMerged] = alicesVector[currentIndexAlices]; ++currentIndexAlices; } ++currentIndexMerged; } return mergedVector; }

Cool. This'll work, but it's a bit repetitive. We have these two lines twice:

mergedVector[currentIndexMerged] = myVector[currentIndexMine]; ++currentIndexMine;

Same for these two lines:

mergedVector[currentIndexMerged] = alicesVector[currentIndexAlices]; ++currentIndexAlices;

That's not DRY. Maybe we can avoid repeating ourselves by bringing our code back down to just 2 cases.

See if you can do this in just one "if else" by combining the conditionals.

You might try to simply squish the middle cases together:

if (isAlicesVectorExhausted || (myVector[currentIndexMine] < alicesVector[currentIndexAlices])) { mergedVector[currentIndexMerged] = myVector[currentIndexMine]; ++currentIndexMine;

But what happens when myVector is exhausted?

We'll get a segfault when we try to access myVector[currentIndexMine]!

How can we fix this?

First, we allocate our answer vector, getting its size by adding the size of myVector and alicesVector.

We keep track of a current index in myVector, a current index in alicesVector, and a current index in mergedVector. So at each step, there's a "current item" in alicesVector and in myVector. The smaller of those is the next one we add to the mergedVector!

But careful: we also need to account for the case where we exhaust one of our vectors and there are still elements in the other. To handle this, we say that the current item in myVector is the next item to add to mergedVector only if myVector is not exhausted AND, either:

  1. alicesVector is exhausted, or
  2. the current item in myVector is less than the current item in alicesVector
vector<int> mergeVectors(const vector<int>& myVector, const vector<int>& alicesVector) { // set up our mergedVector vector<int> mergedVector(myVector.size() + alicesVector.size()); size_t currentIndexAlices = 0; size_t currentIndexMine = 0; size_t currentIndexMerged = 0; while (currentIndexMerged < mergedVector.size()) { bool isMyVectorExhausted = currentIndexMine >= myVector.size(); bool isAlicesVectorExhausted = currentIndexAlices >= alicesVector.size(); // case: next comes from my vector // my vector must not be exhausted, and EITHER: // 1) Alice's vector IS exhausted, or // 2) the current element in my vector is less // than the current element in Alice's vector if (!isMyVectorExhausted && (isAlicesVectorExhausted || (myVector[currentIndexMine] < alicesVector[currentIndexAlices]))) { mergedVector[currentIndexMerged] = myVector[currentIndexMine]; ++currentIndexMine; // case: next comes from Alice's vector } else { mergedVector[currentIndexMerged] = alicesVector[currentIndexAlices]; ++currentIndexAlices; } ++currentIndexMerged; } return mergedVector; }

The if statement is carefully constructed to avoid undefined behavior from indexing past the end of the vector. We take advantage of C++ short circuit evaluation and check first if the vectors are exhausted.

time and additional space, where n is the number of items in the merged vector.

The added space comes from allocating the mergedVector. There's no way to do this "in place" because neither of our input vectors are necessarily big enough to hold the merged vector.

But if our inputs were linked lists, we could avoid allocating a new structure and do the merge by simply adjusting the next pointers in the list nodes!

In our implementation above, we could avoid tracking currentIndexMerged and just compute it on the fly by adding currentIndexMine and currentIndexAlices. This would only save us one integer of space though, which is hardly anything. It's probably not worth the added code complexity.

What if we wanted to merge several sorted vectors? Write a function that takes as an input a vector of sorted vectors and outputs a single sorted vector with all the items from each vector.

Do we absolutely have to allocate a new vector to use for the merged output? Where else could we store our merged vector? How would our function need to change?

We spent a lot of time figuring out how to cleanly handle edge cases.

Sometimes it's easy to lose steam at the end of a coding interview when you're debugging. But keep sprinting through to the finish! Think about edge cases. Look for off-by-one errors.

Wanna review this one again later? Or do you feel like you got it all?

Mark as done Pin for review later

Reset editor

Powered by qualified.io

. . .