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”。

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。

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.

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.

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。

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.)