以下是我的观点:

有时，当算法在特定的硬件环境中运行时，会选择较差的复杂度算法来代替较好的算法。假设我们的O(1)算法非顺序地访问一个非常大的固定大小数组的每个元素来解决我们的问题。然后将该阵列放在机械硬盘驱动器或磁带上。

在这种情况下，O(logn)算法(假设它按顺序访问磁盘)变得更有利。

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.

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。

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).

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.