Please tell the complexity of http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/maximum-bipartite-matching/ ?
And if we use directly Ford-Fulkerson Algorithm, will it be better?
| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3670 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3657 |
| 4 | maroonrk | 3355 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 3353 |
| 6 | squareOf105 | 3346 |
| 7 | tourist | 3343 |
| 8 | strapple | 3324 |
| 9 | heuristica | 3322 |
| 10 | jiangbowen | 3291 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 158 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 150 |
| 2 | maspy | 150 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 144 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 141 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | adamant | 137 |
| 8 | BledDest | 134 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 133 |
| 10 | qwexd | 130 |
Please tell the complexity of http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/maximum-bipartite-matching/ ?
And if we use directly Ford-Fulkerson Algorithm, will it be better?
| Name |
|---|



Maximum Bipartite Matching with Ford-Fulkerson takes O(VE) time. Using Dinic instead of Ford-Fulkerson (or Edmonds Karp for that matter; note that Edmonds Karp always find the shortest augmenting path instead of finding a random path), you can achieve a complexity of
.
Can you plz explain the complexity of the link I provided?
Secondly when and how Ford-Fulkerson Algorithm becomes better?
In the link, the bipartite matching is done using Ford-Fulkerson, so the complexity is O(VE).
I don't understand your second question.
A very good source to learn Max-Flow is CLRS. There's an entire chapter dedicated to network flows. You should read it.