复杂度为O(N)

首先创建一个100个int的数组，将这个数组的第一个元素初始化为N个值的第一个元素， 用另一个变量CurrentBig来跟踪当前元素的索引

遍历N个值

if N[i] > M[CurrentBig] {

M[CurrentBig]=N[i]; ( overwrite the current value with the newly found larger number)

CurrentBig++;      ( go to the next position in the M array)

CurrentBig %= 100; ( modulo arithmetic saves you from using lists/hashes etc.)

M[CurrentBig]=N[i];    ( pick up the current value again to use it for the next Iteration of the N array)

} 

完成后，从CurrentBig中打印M数组100次模100:-) 对于学生:确保代码的最后一行在代码退出之前没有胜过有效数据

取十亿个数字中的前一百个，然后排序。现在只需遍历十亿，如果源数大于100中最小的数，则按排序顺序插入。你得到的结果更接近于O(n)除以集合的大小。

你可以在O(n)个时间内完成。只需遍历列表，并跟踪在任何给定点上看到的最大的100个数字，以及该组中的最小值。当你发现一个新的数字大于你的10个数字中的最小值，然后替换它并更新你的新的100的最小值(可能每次你都要花100的常数时间来确定，但这并不影响整体分析)。

您可以使用快速选择算法在(按顺序)索引[十亿-101]处查找数字 然后遍历这些数字找出比这个数字更大的数。

array={...the billion numbers...} 
result[100];

pivot=QuickSelect(array,billion-101);//O(N)

for(i=0;i<billion;i++)//O(N)
   if(array[i]>=pivot)
      result.add(array[i]);

该算法时间为:2 X O(N) = O(N)(平均情况性能)

Thomas Jungblut建议的第二个选择是:

使用堆构建最大堆将花费O(N)，然后前100个最大的数字将在堆的顶部，所有你需要的是把它们从堆(100 X O(Log(N))。

该算法时间为:O(N) + 100 X O(Log(N)) = O(N)

使用第n个元素得到第100个元素O(n) 迭代第二次，但只有一次，并输出大于此特定元素的所有元素。

请特别注意，第二步可能很容易并行计算!当你需要一百万个最大的元素时，它也会很有效。

The simplest solution is to scan the billion numbers large array and hold the 100 largest values found so far in a small array buffer without any sorting and remember the smallest value of this buffer. First I thought this method was proposed by fordprefect but in a comment he said that he assumed the 100 number data structure being implemented as a heap. Whenever a new number is found that is larger then the minimum in the buffer is overwritten by the new value found and the buffer is searched for the current minimum again. If the numbers in billion number array are randomly distributed most of the time the value from the large array is compared to the minimum of the small array and discarded. Only for a very very small fraction of number the value must be inserted into the small array. So the difference of manipulating the data structure holding the small numbers can be neglected. For a small number of elements it is hard to determine if the usage of a priority queue is actually faster than using my naive approach.

I want to estimate the number of inserts in the small 100 element array buffer when the 10^9 element array is scanned. The program scans the first 1000 elements of this large array and has to insert at most 1000 elements in the buffer. The buffer contains 100 element of the 1000 elements scanned, that is 0.1 of the element scanned. So we assume that the probability that a value from the large array is larger than the current minimum of the buffer is about 0.1 Such an element has to be inserted in the buffer . Now the program scans the next 10^4 elements from the large array. Because the minimum of the buffer will increase every time a new element is inserted. We estimated that the ratio of elements larger than our current minimum is about 0.1 and so there are 0.1*10^4=1000 elements to insert. Actually the expected number of elements that are inserted into the buffer will be smaller. After the scan of this 10^4 elements fraction of the numbers in the buffer will be about 0.01 of the elements scanned so far. So when scanning the next 10^5 numbers we assume that not more than 0.01*10^5=1000 will be inserted in the buffer. Continuing this argumentation we have inserted about 7000 values after scanning 1000+10^4+10^5+...+10^9 ~ 10^9 elements of the large array. So when scanning an array with 10^9 elements of random size we expect not more than 10^4 (=7000 rounded up) insertions in the buffer. After each insertion into the buffer the new minimum must be found. If the buffer is a simple array we need 100 comparison to find the new minimum. If the buffer is another data structure (like a heap) we need at least 1 comparison to find the minimum. To compare the elements of the large array we need 10^9 comparisons. So all in all we need about 10^9+100*10^4=1.001 * 10^9 comparisons when using an array as buffer and at least 1.000 * 10^9 comparisons when using another type of data structure (like a heap). So using a heap brings only a gain of 0.1% if performance is determined by the number of comparison. But what is the difference in execution time between inserting an element in a 100 element heap and replacing an element in an 100 element array and finding its new minimum?

在理论层面:在堆中插入需要多少比较。我知道它是O(log(n))但常数因子有多大呢?我 在机器级别:缓存和分支预测对堆插入和数组中线性搜索的执行时间有什么影响? 在实现级别:库或编译器提供的堆数据结构中隐藏了哪些额外成本?

我认为，在人们试图估计100个元素堆和100个元素数组的性能之间的真正区别之前，这些都是必须回答的一些问题。所以做一个实验并测量真实的表现是有意义的。