这可能太数学化了，但这是我的尝试。(我是数学家。)

如果某个东西是O(f(n))，那么它在n个元素上的运行时间将等于A f(n) + B(以时钟周期或CPU操作为单位)。理解这些常量A和B是非常关键的，它们来自特定的实现。B本质上代表你的操作的“常量开销”，例如你所做的一些预处理不依赖于集合的大小。A表示实际项目处理算法的速度。

关键在于，你可以使用大O符号来计算某物的可伸缩性。所以这些常数并不重要:如果你想弄清楚如何从10个项目扩展到10000个项目，谁会关心开销常数B呢?类似地，其他问题(见下文)肯定会超过乘法常数A的重要性。

So the real deal is f(n). If f grows not at all with n, e.g. f(n) = 1, then you'll scale fantastically---your running time will always just be A + B. If f grows linearly with n, i.e. f(n) = n, your running time will scale pretty much as best as can be expected---if your users are waiting 10 ns for 10 elements, they'll wait 10000 ns for 10000 elements (ignoring the additive constant). But if it grows faster, like n2, then you're in trouble; things will start slowing down way too much when you get larger collections. f(n) = n log(n) is a good compromise, usually: your operation can't be so simple as to give linear scaling, but you've managed to cut things down such that it'll scale much better than f(n) = n2.

实际上，这里有一些很好的例子:

O(1): retrieving an element from an array. We know exactly where it is in memory, so we just go get it. It doesn't matter if the collection has 10 items or 10000; it's still at index (say) 3, so we just jump to location 3 in memory. O(n): retrieving an element from a linked list. Here, A = 0.5, because on average you''ll have to go through 1/2 of the linked list before you find the element you're looking for. O(n2): various "dumb" sorting algorithms. Because generally their strategy involves, for each element (n), you look at all the other elements (so times another n, giving n2), then position yourself in the right place. O(n log(n)): various "smart" sorting algorithms. It turns out that you only need to look at, say, 10 elements in a 1010-element collection to intelligently sort yourself relative to everyone else in the collection. Because everyone else is also going to look at 10 elements, and the emergent behavior is orchestrated just right so that this is enough to produce a sorted list. O(n!): an algorithm that "tries everything," since there are (proportional to) n! possible combinations of n elements that might solve a given problem. So it just loops through all such combinations, tries them, then stops whenever it succeeds.

有一件事由于某种原因还没有被提及:

当你看到像O(2^n)或O(n^3)这样的算法时，这通常意味着你将不得不接受一个不完美的问题答案，以获得可接受的性能。

在处理优化问题时，像这样的正确解决方案很常见。在合理的时间内给出一个近乎正确的答案，总比在机器腐烂成灰尘很久之后才给出一个正确答案要好。

以国际象棋为例:我不知道正确的解决方案是什么，但它可能是O(n^50)或更糟。从理论上讲，任何计算机都不可能真正计算出正确答案——即使你用宇宙中的每个粒子作为计算元素，在宇宙生命周期内尽可能短的时间内执行一项操作，你仍然会剩下很多零。(量子计算机能否解决这个问题是另一回事。)

假设你有一台可以解决一定规模问题的计算机。现在想象一下，我们可以将性能提高几倍。每加倍一次，我们能解决多大的问题?

如果我们能解决一个两倍大的问题，那就是O(n)

如果我们有一个非1的乘数，那就是某种多项式复杂度。例如，如果每加倍一次，问题的规模就会增加约40%，即O(n²)，而约30%则是O(n³)。

如果我们只是增加问题的规模，它是指数级的，甚至更糟。例如，如果每翻一倍意味着我们可以解决一个大1的问题，它就是O(2^n)。(这就是为什么使用合理大小的密钥实际上不可能强制使用密码密钥:128位密钥需要的处理量大约是64位密钥的16万亿倍。)

一种思考的方式是:

O(N²)意味着对于每个元素，你都要对其他元素做一些事情，比如比较它们。冒泡排序就是一个例子。

O(N log N)意味着对于每个元素，你只需要看log N个元素。这通常是因为你知道一些元素，可以让你做出有效的选择。最有效的排序就是一个例子，比如归并排序。

O(N!)表示对N个元素的所有可能排列进行处理。旅行推销员就是一个例子，那里有N!访问节点的方法，暴力解决方案是查看每一种可能的排列的总代价，以找到最优的一个。

Big-O背后的“直觉

想象一下，当x趋于无穷时，x上的两个函数f(x)和g(x)之间的“竞争”。

现在，如果从某一点开始(某个x点)，一个函数的值总是比另一个高，那么我们称这个函数比另一个“快”。

例如，对于每x > 100，你看到f(x) > g(x)，那么f(x)比g(x)“快”。

在这种情况下，我们可以说g(x) = O(f(x))F (x)对g(x)提出了某种“速度限制”，因为最终它超过了它，并将其永远甩在后面。

这并不完全是大o符号的定义，它还指出，对于某个常数C, f(x)只需要大于C*g(x)(这只是另一种说法，你不能通过将g(x)乘以常数因子来帮助g(x)赢得竞争- f(x)最终总是会赢)。正式的定义也使用绝对值。但我希望我能让它更直观。

这可能太数学化了，但这是我的尝试。(我是数学家。)

如果某个东西是O(f(n))，那么它在n个元素上的运行时间将等于A f(n) + B(以时钟周期或CPU操作为单位)。理解这些常量A和B是非常关键的，它们来自特定的实现。B本质上代表你的操作的“常量开销”，例如你所做的一些预处理不依赖于集合的大小。A表示实际项目处理算法的速度。

关键在于，你可以使用大O符号来计算某物的可伸缩性。所以这些常数并不重要:如果你想弄清楚如何从10个项目扩展到10000个项目，谁会关心开销常数B呢?类似地，其他问题(见下文)肯定会超过乘法常数A的重要性。

So the real deal is f(n). If f grows not at all with n, e.g. f(n) = 1, then you'll scale fantastically---your running time will always just be A + B. If f grows linearly with n, i.e. f(n) = n, your running time will scale pretty much as best as can be expected---if your users are waiting 10 ns for 10 elements, they'll wait 10000 ns for 10000 elements (ignoring the additive constant). But if it grows faster, like n2, then you're in trouble; things will start slowing down way too much when you get larger collections. f(n) = n log(n) is a good compromise, usually: your operation can't be so simple as to give linear scaling, but you've managed to cut things down such that it'll scale much better than f(n) = n2.

实际上，这里有一些很好的例子:

O(1): retrieving an element from an array. We know exactly where it is in memory, so we just go get it. It doesn't matter if the collection has 10 items or 10000; it's still at index (say) 3, so we just jump to location 3 in memory. O(n): retrieving an element from a linked list. Here, A = 0.5, because on average you''ll have to go through 1/2 of the linked list before you find the element you're looking for. O(n2): various "dumb" sorting algorithms. Because generally their strategy involves, for each element (n), you look at all the other elements (so times another n, giving n2), then position yourself in the right place. O(n log(n)): various "smart" sorting algorithms. It turns out that you only need to look at, say, 10 elements in a 1010-element collection to intelligently sort yourself relative to everyone else in the collection. Because everyone else is also going to look at 10 elements, and the emergent behavior is orchestrated just right so that this is enough to produce a sorted list. O(n!): an algorithm that "tries everything," since there are (proportional to) n! possible combinations of n elements that might solve a given problem. So it just loops through all such combinations, tries them, then stops whenever it succeeds.