how to ranking value array ?

[katak]

hi...

1. how to do ranking value in array ?

let said i hv 200000 sets of data need to store in an array after that i need to do ranking for the 200000 sets of data and find out the top 20 sets smaller value in array over total set of data (200000 sets of data) .

2. what is maximum space(size of array) for an array in 1D , and 2D ?

[weaknessforcats]

There is not defined maximum size for an array.

Also, there is no difference memorywise between a 1D and 2D array.

You might read this:

First, there are only one-dimensional arrays in C or C++. The number of elements in put between brackets:

int array[5];
 

That is an array of 5 elements each of which is an int.

int array[];
 

won't compile. You need to declare the number of elements.

Second, this array:

int array[5][10];
 

is still an array of 5 elements. Each element is an array of 10 int.

int array[5][10][15];
 

is still an array of 5 elements. Each element is an array of 10 elements where each element is an array of 15 int.

int array[][10];
 

won't compile. You need to declare the number of elements.

Third, the name of an array is the address of element 0

int array[5];
 

Here array is the address of array[0]. Since array[0] is an int, array is the address of an int. You can assign the name array to an int*.

int array[5][10];
 

Here array is the address of array[0]. Since array[0] is an array of 10 int, array is the address of an array of 10 int. You can assign the name array to a pointer to an array of 10 int:

int array[5][10];
 
int (*ptr)[10] = array;
 

Fourth, when the number of elements is not known at compile time, you create the array dynamically:

int* array = new int[value];
int (*ptr)[10] = new int[value][10];
int (*ptr)[10][15] = new int[value][10][15];
 

In each case value is the number of elements. Any other brackets only describe the elements.

Using an int** for an array of arrays is incorrect and produces wrong answers using pointer arithmetic. The compiler knows this so it won't compile this code:

int** ptr = new int[value][10];    //ERROR
 

new returns the address of an array of 10 int and that isn't the same as an int**.

Likewise:

int*** ptr = new int[value][10][15];    //ERROR
 

new returns the address of an array of 10 elements where each element is an array of 15 int and that isn't the same as an int***.

With the above in mind this array:

int array[10] = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
 

has a memory layout of

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Wheras this array:

int array[5][2] = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
 

has a memory layout of

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Kinda the same, right?

So if your disc file contains

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Does it make a difference wheher you read into a one-dimensional array or a two-dimensional array? No.

Therefore, when you do your read use the address of array[0][0] and read as though you have a
one-dimensional array and the values will be in the correct locations.

[katak]

thank weaknessforcats;
can i create an array sizeof [200000][200000]; ?

[weaknessforcats]

Try it and see if it blows the virtual memory manager. Expect slowdowns when working with very large data.

Consider an approach where the data is disc resident until needed. Then only a small part of the array needs to be in memory.

Certainly products like Oracle and SQL Server can handle much larger dataset than this.

Which brings me to a question: Why can't you just connect your C++ program to Oracle or SQL Server and take advantage of the data handling. I mean, why write and debug this all over again when it's for you to use right now???