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.)

There is a good use case for using a O(log(n)) algorithm instead of an O(1) algorithm that the numerous other answers have ignored: immutability. Hash maps have O(1) puts and gets, assuming good distribution of hash values, but they require mutable state. Immutable tree maps have O(log(n)) puts and gets, which is asymptotically slower. However, immutability can be valuable enough to make up for worse performance and in the case where multiple versions of the map need to be retained, immutability allows you to avoid having to copy the map, which is O(n), and therefore can improve performance.

当O(1)中的“1”工作单元相对于O(log n)中的工作单元非常高，且期望集大小较小时。例如，如果数组中只有两到三个项，那么计算Dictionary哈希码可能比迭代数组要慢。

or

当O(1)算法中的内存或其他非时间资源需求相对于O(log n)算法非常大时。

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.

总有一个隐藏常数，在O(log n)算法中可以更低。因此，在实际生活数据中，它可以更快地工作。

还有空间问题(比如在烤面包机上运行)。

还有开发人员的时间问题——O(log n)可能更容易实现和验证1000倍。

A more general question is if there are situations where one would prefer an O(f(n)) algorithm to an O(g(n)) algorithm even though g(n) << f(n) as n tends to infinity. As others have already mentioned, the answer is clearly "yes" in the case where f(n) = log(n) and g(n) = 1. It is sometimes yes even in the case that f(n) is polynomial but g(n) is exponential. A famous and important example is that of the Simplex Algorithm for solving linear programming problems. In the 1970s it was shown to be O(2^n). Thus, its worse-case behavior is infeasible. But -- its average case behavior is extremely good, even for practical problems with tens of thousands of variables and constraints. In the 1980s, polynomial time algorithms (such a Karmarkar's interior-point algorithm) for linear programming were discovered, but 30 years later the simplex algorithm still seems to be the algorithm of choice (except for certain very large problems). This is for the obvious reason that average-case behavior is often more important than worse-case behavior, but also for a more subtle reason that the simplex algorithm is in some sense more informative (e.g. sensitivity information is easier to extract).