有没有什么情况下你更喜欢O(log n)时间复杂度而不是O(1)时间复杂度?还是O(n)到O(log n)

你能举个例子吗?


当前回答

考虑一个红黑树。它具有O(log n)的访问、搜索、插入和删除操作。与数组相比,数组的访问权限为O(1),其余操作为O(n)。

因此,对于一个插入、删除或搜索比访问更频繁的应用程序,并且只能在这两种结构之间进行选择,我们更喜欢红黑树。在这种情况下,你可能会说我们更喜欢红黑树更麻烦的O(log n)访问时间。

为什么?因为权限不是我们最关心的。我们正在权衡:应用程序的性能更大程度上受到其他因素的影响。我们允许这种特定的算法受到性能影响,因为我们通过优化其他算法获得了很大的收益。

So the answer to your question is simply this: when the algorithm's growth rate isn't what we want to optimize, when we want to optimize something else. All of the other answers are special cases of this. Sometimes we optimize the run time of other operations. Sometimes we optimize for memory. Sometimes we optimize for security. Sometimes we optimize maintainability. Sometimes we optimize for development time. Even the overriding constant being low enough to matter is optimizing for run time when you know the growth rate of the algorithm isn't the greatest impact on run time. (If your data set was outside this range, you would optimize for the growth rate of the algorithm because it would eventually dominate the constant.) Everything has a cost, and in many cases, we trade the cost of a higher growth rate for the algorithm to optimize something else.

其他回答

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。

有很多很好的答案,其中一些提到了常量因素,输入大小和内存限制,以及许多其他原因,复杂性只是一个理论指导原则,而不是最终决定现实世界是否适合给定的目的或速度。

这里有一个简单而具体的例子来说明这些想法。假设我们想要找出一个数组是否有重复的元素。简单的二次型方法是编写一个嵌套循环:

const hasDuplicate = arr => { 对于(设I = 0;I < arrr .length;我+ +){ For(令j = I + 1;J < arrr .length;j + +) { If (arr[i] === arr[j]) { 返回true; } } } 返回错误; }; console.log(hasDuplicate([1,2,3,4])); console.log(hasDuplicate([1,2,4,4]));

但这可以通过创建一组数据结构(即删除重复项),然后将其大小与数组的长度进行比较,在线性时间内完成:

const hasDuplicate = arr => new Set(arr)。== arrr .length; console.log(hasDuplicate([1,2,3,4])); console.log(hasDuplicate([1,2,4,4]));

大O告诉我们,从时间复杂性的角度来看,新的Set方法将更好地扩展。

然而,事实证明,“天真的”二次元方法有很多大O不能解释的:

没有额外的内存占用 没有堆内存分配(没有新的) 临时Set没有垃圾收集 早期的救助;在已知副本可能位于数组前面的情况下,不需要检查多个元素。

如果我们的用例是在有限的小数组上,我们有一个资源受限的环境和/或其他已知的常见情况属性,允许我们通过基准测试建立嵌套循环在特定工作负载上更快,这可能是一个好主意。

另一方面,也许可以预先创建一次集合并重复使用,在所有查找中摊销其开销成本。

这不可避免地导致可维护性/可读性/优雅性和其他“软”成本。在这种情况下,新的Set()方法可能更具可读性,但通常(如果不是更多的话)要获得更好的复杂性需要付出巨大的工程成本。

创建和维护持久的、有状态的Set结构可能会带来bug、内存/缓存压力、代码复杂性和所有其他设计权衡方式。最优地协商这些权衡是软件工程的一个重要部分,而时间复杂性只是帮助指导这个过程的一个因素。


我还没有看到其他一些例子:

In real-time environments, for example resource-constrained embedded systems, sometimes complexity sacrifices are made (typically related to caches and memory or scheduling) to avoid incurring occasional worst-case penalties that can't be tolerated because they might cause jitter. Also in embedded programming, the size of the code itself can cause cache pressure, impacting memory performance. If an algorithm has worse complexity but will result in massive code size savings, that might be a reason to choose it over an algorithm that's theoretically better. In most implementations of recursive linearithmic algorithms like quicksort, when the array is small enough, a quadratic sorting algorithm like insertion sort is often called because the overhead of recursive function calls on increasingly tiny arrays tends to outweigh the cost of nested loops. Insertion sort is also fast on mostly-sorted arrays as the inner loop won't run much. This answer discusses this in an older version of Chrome's V8 engine before they moved to Timsort.

在实时情况下,当你需要一个固定的上界时,你会选择一个堆排序,而不是快速排序,因为堆排序的平均行为也是它的最差情况行为。

当n很小时,O(1)总是很慢。

考虑一个红黑树。它具有O(log n)的访问、搜索、插入和删除操作。与数组相比,数组的访问权限为O(1),其余操作为O(n)。

因此,对于一个插入、删除或搜索比访问更频繁的应用程序,并且只能在这两种结构之间进行选择,我们更喜欢红黑树。在这种情况下,你可能会说我们更喜欢红黑树更麻烦的O(log n)访问时间。

为什么?因为权限不是我们最关心的。我们正在权衡:应用程序的性能更大程度上受到其他因素的影响。我们允许这种特定的算法受到性能影响,因为我们通过优化其他算法获得了很大的收益。

So the answer to your question is simply this: when the algorithm's growth rate isn't what we want to optimize, when we want to optimize something else. All of the other answers are special cases of this. Sometimes we optimize the run time of other operations. Sometimes we optimize for memory. Sometimes we optimize for security. Sometimes we optimize maintainability. Sometimes we optimize for development time. Even the overriding constant being low enough to matter is optimizing for run time when you know the growth rate of the algorithm isn't the greatest impact on run time. (If your data set was outside this range, you would optimize for the growth rate of the algorithm because it would eventually dominate the constant.) Everything has a cost, and in many cases, we trade the cost of a higher growth rate for the algorithm to optimize something else.