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?
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
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.
其他回答
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。
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).
并行执行算法的可能性。
我不知道是否有O(log n)和O(1)类的例子,但对于某些问题,当算法更容易并行执行时,您会选择具有更高复杂度类的算法。
有些算法不能并行化,但复杂度很低。考虑另一种算法,它可以达到相同的结果,并且可以很容易地并行化,但具有更高的复杂度类。当在一台机器上执行时,第二种算法速度较慢,但当在多台机器上执行时,实际执行时间越来越短,而第一种算法无法加快速度。
当n很小时,O(1)总是很慢。
简单地说:因为系数(与该步骤的设置、存储和执行时间相关的成本)在较小的大o问题中比在较大的大o问题中要大得多。Big-O只是算法可伸缩性的一个衡量标准。
考虑以下来自黑客词典的例子,提出了一个依赖于量子力学的多重世界解释的排序算法:
用量子过程随机排列数组, 如果数组没有排序,毁灭宇宙。 所有剩下的宇宙现在都被排序了(包括你所在的宇宙)。
(来源:http://catb.org/ esr /术语/ html / B / bogo-sort.html)
注意,这个算法的大O是O(n),它击败了迄今为止在一般项目上的任何已知排序算法。线性阶跃的系数也很低(因为它只是一个比较,而不是交换,是线性完成的)。事实上,类似的算法可以用于在多项式时间内解决NP和co-NP中的任何问题,因为每个可能的解(或没有解的可能证明)都可以使用量子过程生成,然后在多项式时间内验证。
然而,在大多数情况下,我们可能不想冒多重世界可能不正确的风险,更不用说实现步骤2的行为仍然是“留给读者的练习”。