我在问更多关于这对我的代码意味着什么。我能从数学上理解这些概念，只是很难理解它们在概念上的含义。例如，如果有人要对一个数据结构执行O(1)操作，我知道它必须执行的操作数量不会增长，因为有更多的项。O(n)操作意味着您将对每个元素执行一组操作。有人能帮我填一下吗?
比如O(n²)的运算会怎样? 如果一个操作是O(nlog (n))这是什么意思? 有人必须吸可卡因才能写出O(x!)吗?
当前回答
big - o符号对代码的重要意义在于，当它所操作的“事物”数量增加一倍时，它将如何扩展。这里有一个具体的例子:
Big-O | computations for 10 things | computations for 100 things ---------------------------------------------------------------------- O(1) | 1 | 1 O(log(n)) | 3 | 7 O(n) | 10 | 100 O(n log(n)) | 30 | 700 O(n^2) | 100 | 10000
快速排序是O(nlog (n))而冒泡排序是O(n²)当排序10个东西时，快速排序比冒泡排序快3倍。但当对100个东西进行排序时，速度要快14倍!显然，选择最快的算法很重要。当您访问具有数百万行的数据库时，这可能意味着您的查询在0.2秒内执行，而不是花费数小时。
另一件需要考虑的事情是，糟糕的算法是摩尔定律无法帮助的事情。例如，如果你有一个O(n^3)的科学计算，它一天可以计算100个东西，处理器速度翻倍一天只能计算125个东西。然而，计算到O(n²)，你每天要做1000件事情。
澄清: 实际上，Big-O并没有说不同算法在同一特定大小点上的性能比较，而是说同一算法在不同大小点上的性能比较:
computations computations computations Big-O | for 10 things | for 100 things | for 1000 things ---------------------------------------------------------------------- O(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 O(log(n)) | 1 | 3 | 7 O(n) | 1 | 10 | 100 O(n log(n)) | 1 | 33 | 664 O(n^2) | 1 | 100 | 10000
其他回答
big - o符号对代码的重要意义在于，当它所操作的“事物”数量增加一倍时，它将如何扩展。这里有一个具体的例子:
Big-O | computations for 10 things | computations for 100 things ---------------------------------------------------------------------- O(1) | 1 | 1 O(log(n)) | 3 | 7 O(n) | 10 | 100 O(n log(n)) | 30 | 700 O(n^2) | 100 | 10000
快速排序是O(nlog (n))而冒泡排序是O(n²)当排序10个东西时，快速排序比冒泡排序快3倍。但当对100个东西进行排序时，速度要快14倍!显然，选择最快的算法很重要。当您访问具有数百万行的数据库时，这可能意味着您的查询在0.2秒内执行，而不是花费数小时。
另一件需要考虑的事情是，糟糕的算法是摩尔定律无法帮助的事情。例如，如果你有一个O(n^3)的科学计算，它一天可以计算100个东西，处理器速度翻倍一天只能计算125个东西。然而，计算到O(n²)，你每天要做1000件事情。
澄清: 实际上，Big-O并没有说不同算法在同一特定大小点上的性能比较，而是说同一算法在不同大小点上的性能比较:
computations computations computations Big-O | for 10 things | for 100 things | for 1000 things ---------------------------------------------------------------------- O(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 O(log(n)) | 1 | 3 | 7 O(n) | 1 | 10 | 100 O(n log(n)) | 1 | 33 | 664 O(n^2) | 1 | 100 | 10000
其中很多都很容易用非编程的东西来演示，比如洗牌。
对一副牌进行排序通过遍历整副牌找到黑桃a，然后遍历整副牌找到黑桃2，以此类推最坏情况是n^2，如果这副牌已经倒着排序了。你看了52张牌52次。
一般来说，真正糟糕的算法不一定是故意的，它们通常是对其他东西的误用，比如在同一集合上线性重复的另一个方法中调用一个线性方法。
我试图用c#和JavaScript给出简单的代码示例来解释。
C#
For List<int> numbers = new List<int> {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,12,543,7};
O(1)看起来像
return numbers.First();
O(n)看起来像
int result = 0;
foreach (int num in numbers)
{
result += num;
}
return result;
O(nlog (n))是这样的
int result = 0;
foreach (int num in numbers)
{
int index = numbers.Count - 1;
while (index > 1)
{
// yeah, stupid, but couldn't come up with something more useful :-(
result += numbers[index];
index /= 2;
}
}
return result;
O(n2)是这样的
int result = 0;
foreach (int outerNum in numbers)
{
foreach (int innerNum in numbers)
{
result += outerNum * innerNum;
}
}
return result;
O(n!)看起来，嗯，太累了，想不出任何简单的东西。 但我希望你能明白大意?
JavaScript
对于const数= [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,12,543,7];
O(1)看起来像
numbers[0];
O(n)看起来像
let result = 0;
for (num of numbers){
result += num;
}
O(nlog (n))是这样的
let result = 0;
for (num of numbers){
let index = numbers.length - 1;
while (index > 1){
// yeah, stupid, but couldn't come up with something more useful :-(
result += numbers[index];
index = Math.floor(index/2)
}
}
O(n2)是这样的
let result = 0;
for (outerNum of numbers){
for (innerNum of numbers){
result += outerNum * innerNum;
}
}
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.
log(n) means logarithmic growth. An example would be divide and conquer algorithms. If you have 1000 sorted numbers in an array ( ex. 3, 10, 34, 244, 1203 ... ) and want to search for a number in the list (find its position), you could start with checking the value of the number at index 500. If it is lower than what you seek, jump to 750. If it is higher than what you seek, jump to 250. Then you repeat the process until you find your value (and key). Every time we jump half the search space, we can cull away testing many other values since we know the number 3004 can't be above number 5000 (remember, it is a sorted list).
N log(N)表示N * log(N)
