我很惊讶没有人提到内存绑定应用程序。

可能存在一种算法具有较少的浮点运算，这要么是因为它的复杂性(即O(1) < O(log n))，要么是因为复杂度前面的常数更小(即2n2 < 6n2)。无论如何，如果较低的FLOP算法的内存限制更大，您可能仍然更喜欢具有更多FLOP的算法。

我所说的“内存受限”是指您经常访问的数据经常超出缓存。为了获取这些数据，在对其执行操作之前，必须将内存从实际内存空间拉到缓存中。这个抓取步骤通常非常慢——比您的操作本身慢得多。

因此，如果你的算法需要更多的操作(但这些操作是在已经在缓存中的数据上执行的[因此不需要读取])，它仍然会在实际的walltime方面以更少的操作(必须在缓存外的数据上执行[因此需要读取])胜过你的算法。

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。

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”。

给已经好的答案锦上添花。一个实际的例子是postgres数据库中的哈希索引和b树索引。

哈希索引形成一个哈希表索引来访问磁盘上的数据，而btree顾名思义使用的是btree数据结构。

大O时间是O(1) vs O(logN)

目前不鼓励在postgres中使用哈希索引，因为在现实生活中，特别是在数据库系统中，实现无冲突的哈希是非常困难的(可能导致O(N)最坏情况的复杂性)，正因为如此，使它们具有崩溃安全性就更加困难了(在postgres中称为提前写日志- WAL)。

在这种情况下进行这种权衡，因为O(logN)对于索引来说已经足够好了，而实现O(1)非常困难，而且时间差并不重要。

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。

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.