Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 608085
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T17:25:36+00:00 2026-05-13T17:25:36+00:00

I’m trying to implement an iterative version of Tarjan’s strongly connected components (SCCs), reproduced

  • 0

I’m trying to implement an iterative version of Tarjan’s strongly connected components (SCCs), reproduced here for your convenience (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarjan%27s_strongly_connected_components_algorithm).

Input: Graph G = (V, E)

index = 0                         // DFS node number counter 
S = empty                         // An empty stack of nodes
forall v in V do
  if (v.index is undefined)       // Start a DFS at each node
    tarjan(v)                     // we haven't visited yet

procedure tarjan(v)
  v.index = index                 // Set the depth index for v
  v.lowlink = index
  index = index + 1
  S.push(v)                       // Push v on the stack
  forall (v, v') in E do          // Consider successors of v
    if (v'.index is undefined)    // Was successor v' visited?
        tarjan(v')                // Recurse
        v.lowlink = min(v.lowlink, v'.lowlink)
    else if (v' is in S)          // Was successor v' in stack S? 
        v.lowlink = min(v.lowlink, v'.lowlink )
  if (v.lowlink == v.index)       // Is v the root of an SCC?
    print "SCC:"
    repeat
      v' = S.pop
      print v'
    until (v' == v)

My iterative version uses the following Node struct.

struct Node {
    int id; //Signed int up to 2^31 - 1 = 2,147,483,647
    int index;
    int lowlink;        
    Node *caller;                    //If you were looking at the recursive version, this is the node before the recursive call
    unsigned int vindex;             //Equivalent to the iterator in the for-loop in tarjan
    vector<Node *> *nodeVector;      //Vector of adjacent Nodes 
};

Here’s what I did for the iterative version:

 void Graph::runTarjan(int out[]) {  //You can ignore out. It's a 5-element array that keeps track of the largest 5 SCCs
        int index = 0;
tarStack = new stack<Node *>();
    onStack = new bool[numNodes];
  for (int n = 0; n < numNodes; n++) {
    if (nodes[n].index == unvisited) {
      tarjan_iter(&nodes[n], index);
    }
  }
}

void Graph::tarjan_iter(Node *u, int &index) {
    u->index = index;
    u->lowlink = index;
    index++;
    u->vindex = 0; 
    tarStack->push(u);
    u->caller = NULL;           //Equivalent to the node from which the recursive call would spawn.
    onStack[u->id - 1] = true;
    Node *last = u;
    while(true) {
        if(last->vindex < last->nodeVector->size()) {       //Equivalent to the check in the for-loop in the recursive version
            Node *w = (*(last->nodeVector))[last->vindex];
            last->vindex++;                                   //Equivalent to incrementing the iterator in the for-loop in the recursive version
            if(w->index == unvisited) {
                w->caller = last;                     
                w->vindex = 0;
                w->index = index;
                w->lowlink = index;
                index++;
                tarStack->push(w);
                onStack[w->id - 1] = true;
                last = w;
            } else if(onStack[w->id - 1] == true) {
                last->lowlink = min(last->lowlink, w->index);
            }
        } else {  //Equivalent to the nodeSet iterator pointing to end()
            if(last->lowlink == last->index) {
                numScc++;
                Node *top = tarStack->top();
                tarStack->pop();
                onStack[top->id - 1] = false;
                int size = 1;

                while(top->id != last->id) {
                    top = tarStack->top();
                    tarStack->pop();
                    onStack[top->id - 1] = false;
                    size++;
                }
                insertNewSCC(size);  //Ranks the size among array of 5 elements
            }

            Node *newLast = last->caller;   //Go up one recursive call
            if(newLast != NULL) {
                newLast->lowlink = min(newLast->lowlink, last->lowlink);
                last = newLast;
            } else {   //We've seen all the nodes
                break;
            }
        }
    }
}

My iterative version runs and gives me the same output as the recursive version. The problem is that the iterative version is slower, and I’m not sure why. Can anyone give me some insight on my implementation? Is there a better way to implement the recursive algorithm iteratively?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T17:25:36+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 5:25 pm

    A recursive algorithm uses the stack as storage area. In the iterative version, you use some vectors, which themselves rely on heap allocation. Stack-based allocation is known to be very fast, since it is only a matter of moving an end-of-stack pointer, whereas heap allocation may be substantially slower. That the iterative version is slower is not fully surprising.

    Generally speaking, if the problem at hand fits well within a stack-only recursive model, then, by all means, recurse.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

No related questions found

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.