[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
## Re: [igraph] Two different ways of finding giant component

**From**: |
Tamás Nepusz |

**Subject**: |
Re: [igraph] Two different ways of finding giant component |

**Date**: |
Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:17:57 +0200 |

>* - First one:*
>* giant.component <- function(graph, ...) {*
>* cl <- clusters(graph, ...)*
>* subgraph(graph, which(cl$membership == which.max(cl$csize)-1)-1)*
>* }*
You don't have to subtract 1 from the result of which and which.max since
igraph 0.6 if I remember correctly.
>* Anyway, I decided that problem of the first function may be related to *
>* obsolete igraph (1/0 indexing) version and then deleted both minus 1s that *
>* gives the same result with the second one. But now I'm not sure whether that *
>* makes sense, I mean which one of the above methods are more reliable to find *
>* giant component (or is there a better way)?*
Both are equivalent and correct if you omit the -1 from the first version.
However, the first version is faster because it does not extract the remaining
components for you while decompose.graph does that.
--
Tamas