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
在n有界且O(1)算法的常数乘子高于log(n)上的界的任意点。例如,在哈希集中存储值是O(1),但可能需要对哈希函数进行昂贵的计算。如果数据项可以简单地进行比较(相对于某些顺序),并且n的边界是这样的,log n明显小于任何一项上的哈希计算,那么存储在平衡二叉树中可能比存储在哈希集中更快。
其他回答
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.
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。
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.
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.
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.)