<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear students,</p>
<p>I updated the first task (Java RMI) with the recommended graph
sizes, and fixed a small bug in the transitive algorithm.</p>
<p>Due to the updates, the deadline for the task is shifted by one
week to <b>23rd March</b>. All other deadlines remain unaffected.<br>
</p>
<p><b>Transitive algorithm bug</b><br>
</p>
<p>It has been reported that the transitive algorithm provides a
wrong answer in the case when the source and destination are the
same node.</p>
<p>This has been fixed in the provided code, by checking for this
situation at the top of SearcherImpl.getDistanceTransitive. You
can copy this check into your code.<br>
</p>
<p><b>Graph sizes</b><br>
</p>
<p>
To see the differences between the five variants, it is best to
try increasing the number of nodes and look separately at dense
and sparse graphs.
The following parameters are the recommended graph sizes. You can
choose different parameters, as long as the differences between
the variants are apparent in the results.
</p>
<ul>
<li>For <strong>sparse</strong> graphs, generate graphs with
number of nodes ranging from 100 to 1000 in steps of 50, with
number of edges being <strong>three times</strong> the number
of nodes. For each size, run at least 10 searches.
</li>
<li>For <strong>dense</strong> graphs, generate graphs with
number of nodes ranging from 100 to 700 in steps of 50, with
number of edges being <strong>a hundred times</strong> the
number of nodes. For each size, run 10 searches.
</li>
</ul>
<p>When making the comparison chart for the five variants, you can
make two separate charts, one for sparse and one for dense graphs.</p>
<p>Vlastimil Dort<br>
</p>
<p></p>
</body>
</html>