# Find no of reverse pairs in an array which is sorted in two parts in O(N)

**Objective**: Given an array of integers A[] which is sorted in two parts (both parts are individually sorted), find no of reverse pairs means no of (i, j) pairs where i belongs to the part one and j belongs to part 2 and A[i]>A[j].

**Example**:

A[] = {4, 6, 8, 9, 1, 5, 10, 11} Output: 7 Explanation: Part one: {4, 6, 8, 9} Part two: {1, 5, 10, 11}Reversed pairs: (4, 1) (6, 1) (6, 5) (8, 1) (8, 5) (9, 1) (9, 5) = 7

**Approach**:

**Naïve Approach:**

Use nested for loops and compare each element with all other elements in array and check if it is reversed pair, if yes then add it to the result. At the end print the result.

**Time Complexity**: **O(N ^{2})**

**Better Approach**:

- Iterate the array and find the start index of second sorted array part say it is
.*m* - Part one if from
to*0*. Part two is from*m-1*to*m*.*length-1* - Take two pointer (
and*i*),*j*at the index 0 (start index of part one) and*i*at the*j*

**Pseudo code:**

Initialize result = 0. Do while i<=m-1 && j<=length-1. If A[i]>A[j] then result = result + (m-i)+1. do j++. If A[i]<=A[j] do i++; End Loop

**Time Complexity**: **O(N)**

**Example**:

A[] = {4, 6, 8, 9, 1, 5, 10, 11} i = 0, end_partone = 3, j = 4, end_part_two=7,result =0A[i]>A[j] (4>1), result = result + end_partone – i+1 => 0+3-0+1 = 4 j++ i = 0, end_partone = 3, j = 5, end_part_two=7,result =4A[i]>A[j] (4<5) => i++ => i=1 i = 1, end_partone = 3, j = 5, end_part_two=7,result =4A[i]>A[j] (6>5), result = result + end_partone – i+1 => 4+3-1+1 = 7 j++ i = 1, end_partone = 3, j = 6, end_part_two=7,result =7A[i]>A[j] (6<10) => i++ => i=2 i = 2, end_partone = 3, j = 6, end_part_two=7,result =7A[i]>A[j] (8<10) => i++ => i=3 i = 3, end_partone = 3, j = 6, end_part_two=7,result =7A[i]>A[j] (9<10) => i++ => i=4 (break)

**Code**:

**Output:**

No of reversed pair: 15

In the Pseudo code,

“result = result + (m-1)-i.”

should be

result = result + (m-i)+1;

Thanks Lipsa. Yet again you have found the problem. We have corrected it.