By the way, I opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33703 after a discussion on https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/R3r3G_Qrllo. If I am successful, we will test it to see if there are any performance improvements over the sequential version, else we can remove that line. Is that fine? On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:24:33 PM UTC+5:30 Adarsh Kishore wrote:
> Can I make these changes in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33688 as > discussed? The ticket has not been closed yet > > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:44:36 PM UTC+5:30 David Coudert wrote: > >> You are right, this can be removed too. >> And I'm not sure a parallel version of Boruvka's algorithm is needed. We >> already have a large number of spanning tree algorithms. >> >> >> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 7:56:20 PM UTC+2 patrat...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Just wondering if the third TODO (Randomized spanning tree construction) >>> should be removed as well, since I see a function called >>> "random_spanning_tree" >>> exists already. >>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:23:30 AM UTC+1 adarsh.k...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Okay, then I think that line should be removed right? It can be >>>> misleading to potential contributors >>>> >>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:31:02 PM UTC+5:30 David Coudert wrote: >>>> >>>>> This query has been added in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10433. >>>>> I don't think that priority queue can be of any help to speed up the >>>>> current code. >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:03:41 AM UTC+2 adarsh.k...@gmail.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> I was going through Sage's codebase, and I came across the file >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> SAGE_ROOT/src/sage/graphs/spanning_tree.pyx >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> [image: Screenshot from 2022-04-10 14-27-45.png] >>>>>> >>>>>> In the TODO section, it is mentioned that >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> - Rewrite: func:`kruskal` to use priority queues. >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> >>>>>> I looked it up on Google and StackOverFlow, but I didn't come across >>>>>> any such implementation. The standard implementations all prefer to use >>>>>> the >>>>>> DisjointSet data structure. I would like to contribute to Sage and if >>>>>> someone can point me to a good resource which discusses this concept, >>>>>> preferably with a better time complexity than by using Disjoint Sets, >>>>>> that >>>>>> would be really great >>>>>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/46b8ee67-9230-4d3b-a0e8-fdc0c039fd34n%40googlegroups.com.
