在关注数据安全的上下文中，如果更复杂的算法对定时攻击有更好的抵抗能力，那么更复杂的算法可能比不太复杂的算法更可取。

人们已经回答了你的确切问题，所以我要回答一个稍微不同的问题，人们来这里时可能会想到这个问题。

许多“O(1)时间”算法和数据结构实际上只需要预期的O(1)时间，这意味着它们的平均运行时间是O(1)，可能仅在某些假设下。

常见的例子:哈希表，“数组列表”的扩展(也就是动态大小的数组/向量)。

在这种情况下，您可能更喜欢使用保证时间绝对受对数限制的数据结构或算法，即使它们的平均性能可能更差。 一个例子可能是平衡二叉搜索树，它的运行时间平均较差，但在最坏的情况下更好。

当n很小时，O(1)总是很慢。

Alistra指出了这一点，但未能提供任何例子，所以我会。

您有一个包含10,000个UPC代码的列表，用于您的商店销售的产品。10位UPC，整数价格(便士价格)和30个字符的收据描述。

O(log N)方法:你有一个排序的列表。ASCII是44字节，Unicode是84字节。或者，将UPC视为int64，将得到42和72字节。10,000条记录——在最高的情况下，您看到的存储空间略低于1mb。

O(1)方法:不存储UPC，而是将其用作数组的一个条目。在最低的情况下，您将看到近三分之一tb的存储空间。

Which approach you use depends on your hardware. On most any reasonable modern configuration you're going to use the log N approach. I can picture the second approach being the right answer if for some reason you're running in an environment where RAM is critically short but you have plenty of mass storage. A third of a terabyte on a disk is no big deal, getting your data in one probe of the disk is worth something. The simple binary approach takes 13 on average. (Note, however, that by clustering your keys you can get this down to a guaranteed 3 reads and in practice you would cache the first one.)

在n有界且O(1)算法的常数乘子高于log(n)上的界的任意点。例如，在哈希集中存储值是O(1)，但可能需要对哈希函数进行昂贵的计算。如果数据项可以简单地进行比较(相对于某些顺序)，并且n的边界是这样的，log n明显小于任何一项上的哈希计算，那么存储在平衡二叉树中可能比存储在哈希集中更快。

选择大O复杂度高的算法而不是大O复杂度低的算法的原因有很多:

most of the time, lower big-O complexity is harder to achieve and requires skilled implementation, a lot of knowledge and a lot of testing. big-O hides the details about a constant: algorithm that performs in 10^5 is better from big-O point of view than 1/10^5 * log(n) (O(1) vs O(log(n)), but for most reasonable n the first one will perform better. For example the best complexity for matrix multiplication is O(n^2.373) but the constant is so high that no (to my knowledge) computational libraries use it. big-O makes sense when you calculate over something big. If you need to sort array of three numbers, it matters really little whether you use O(n*log(n)) or O(n^2) algorithm. sometimes the advantage of the lowercase time complexity can be really negligible. For example there is a data structure tango tree which gives a O(log log N) time complexity to find an item, but there is also a binary tree which finds the same in O(log n). Even for huge numbers of n = 10^20 the difference is negligible. time complexity is not everything. Imagine an algorithm that runs in O(n^2) and requires O(n^2) memory. It might be preferable over O(n^3) time and O(1) space when the n is not really big. The problem is that you can wait for a long time, but highly doubt you can find a RAM big enough to use it with your algorithm parallelization is a good feature in our distributed world. There are algorithms that are easily parallelizable, and there are some that do not parallelize at all. Sometimes it makes sense to run an algorithm on 1000 commodity machines with a higher complexity than using one machine with a slightly better complexity. in some places (security) a complexity can be a requirement. No one wants to have a hash algorithm that can hash blazingly fast (because then other people can bruteforce you way faster) although this is not related to switch of complexity, but some of the security functions should be written in a manner to prevent timing attack. They mostly stay in the same complexity class, but are modified in a way that it always takes worse case to do something. One example is comparing that strings are equal. In most applications it makes sense to break fast if the first bytes are different, but in security you will still wait for the very end to tell the bad news. somebody patented the lower-complexity algorithm and it is more economical for a company to use higher complexity than to pay money. some algorithms adapt well to particular situations. Insertion sort, for example, has an average time-complexity of O(n^2), worse than quicksort or mergesort, but as an online algorithm it can efficiently sort a list of values as they are received (as user input) where most other algorithms can only efficiently operate on a complete list of values.