What's the point of this page? It is the same idea of graph as in mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyir (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 M
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
It seems to be a summary of different ways of representing a graph on a computer.The title should perhaps be "Graph representation" or something like that?--P0nc18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
It's about graphs as a data structure in CS. However, the section for that in Graph theory sounds complete enough to me. Should they be merged?
i think not. BUT! rename it to something like *applications* of graph theory in CS... and make it as root to access all ADT's on wiki (for they are all graphs;). like given those constrains thing we have is tree, this one is special case of tree aka linked list, that one is forest - hash ... i'm gona do it one day 84.16.123.194 (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
As someone who stumbled on this article searching for just an overview of graphs as a data structure, I liked the article, particularly the 'representation' section. I think the article is fine except for the last four lines, which make no sense (as a result of being copied from somewhere else?) Roshangeorge (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think the page should stay. A graph is an important data structure in Computer Science. If anything the article should be expanded to include the details of how values can be stored for each vertex or edge. 69.233.0.248 (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
The subject of this article is distinct from the mathematical notion of a graph. Property graphs, or labeled property graphs, are a family of data models used in connection with graph databases. Property graphs now have an ISO standard in the form of GQL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_Query_Language), but are also distinct from that standard. The article has some issues -- including being slightly out of date w.r.t. GQL and not linking to Neo4j (which originated the data model) or TinkerPop/Gremlin (which popularized it) -- but I would definitely retain it as a separate page. Joshsh (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Need citations for time complexity table
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Where are these time complexity bounds coming from?? I see that this table was introduced in June 13, 2011, and that the figures in the table have changed over time. Does anybody have a reference for this information? Klortho (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Where have all the links gone?
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There used to be a lot of useful links at the foot of this article. The ones that remain are not as useful as the ones that were removed, and seem a bit random. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.232.148 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
A topic identical to some of the former external links is already covered by internal links in the main article body. Readers should be directed away from Wikipedia by external links only when they significantly expand the subject beyond Wikipedia's own content. A long list of links to various implementations is not appropriate for Wikipedia. See the guideline for external links for more information. ✤JonHardertalk12:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Complexity
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, I think there is an improving fact missing: so using a sparse matrix will offer a fast access to the nodes for reading and writing, also the advantage of finding adjacent vertexes stays preserved. Just my 2 cent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.211.175 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Adjacency list time complexity?
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't think the adjacency list is correct about the time complexity:
Query: are vertices u, v adjacent? (Assuming that the storage positions for u, v are known)
O(|V|)
If we store edges in a hash-set (e.g., std::unordered_map<Edge>), we can look up the existence of any potential edge in O(1). That's assuming the data is stored on the graph object itself, but even if we insist on store it in the vertex, like it says,
and every vertex stores a list of adjacent vertices.
…if we say the "list" is a hash-set, it's still O(1). Similarly, such a data structure should allow remove edge to be O(1). Storage is still O(|V| + |E|).
Of course, the Big-O cheat sheet contradicts this, but it seems like if we simply select the correct data structure, we can achieve these complexities.
Storing all the edges in a hash table is a different data structure than an adjacency list. But your second variation, storing the neighbors of each vertex in a hash table, can be interpreted as a variant of the adjacency list and as you say achieves constant time adjacency tests. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Move discussion in progress
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Oppose proposed merge. That appears to be a topic in graph databases, not in the general-purpose computer representation of graphs. If it should be merged somewhere, it should be merged to graph database, not to here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose proposed merge
Property graphs are a different topic altogether< They are related to graph databases, but are more general than these, as explained in th article. They deserve a separate article Steyncham (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.