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。

从十亿个数字中找到前100个最好使用包含100个元素的最小堆。

首先用遇到的前100个数字对最小堆进行质数。Min-heap将前100个数字中最小的存储在根(顶部)。

现在，当你继续计算其他数字时，只将它们与根数(100中最小的数)进行比较。

如果遇到的新数字大于最小堆的根，则将根替换为该数字，否则忽略它。

作为在最小堆中插入新数字的一部分，堆中最小的数字将移到顶部(根)。

一旦我们遍历了所有的数字，我们将得到最小堆中最大的100个数字。

此代码用于在未排序数组中查找N个最大的数字。

#include <iostream>


using namespace std;

#define Array_Size 5 // No Of Largest Numbers To Find
#define BILLION 10000000000

void findLargest(int max[], int array[]);
int checkDup(int temp, int max[]);

int main() {


        int array[BILLION] // contains data

        int i=0, temp;

        int max[Array_Size];


        findLargest(max,array); 


        cout<< "The "<< Array_Size<< " largest numbers in the array are: \n";

        for(i=0; i< Array_Size; i++)
            cout<< max[i] << endl;

        return 0;
    }




void findLargest(int max[], int array[])
{
    int i,temp,res;

    for(int k=0; k< Array_Size; k++)
    {
           i=0;

        while(i < BILLION)
        {
            for(int j=0; j< Array_Size ; j++)
            {
                temp = array[i];

                 res= checkDup(temp,max);

                if(res == 0 && max[j] < temp)
                    max[j] = temp;
            }

            i++;
        }
    }
}


int checkDup(int temp, int max[])
{
    for(int i=0; i<N_O_L_N_T_F; i++)
    {
        if(max[i] == temp)
            return -1;
    }

    return 0;
}

这可能不是一个有效的方法，但可以完成工作。

希望这能有所帮助

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。

我看到了很多O(N)的讨论，所以我提出了一些不同的想法。

关于这些数字的性质有什么已知的信息吗?如果答案是随机的，那就不要再进一步了，看看其他答案。你不会得到比他们更好的结果。

However! See if whatever list-populating mechanism populated that list in a particular order. Are they in a well-defined pattern where you can know with certainty that the largest magnitude of numbers will be found in a certain region of the list or on a certain interval? There may be a pattern to it. If that is so, for example if they are guaranteed to be in some sort of normal distribution with the characteristic hump in the middle, always have repeating upward trends among defined subsets, have a prolonged spike at some time T in the middle of the data set like perhaps an incidence of insider trading or equipment failure, or maybe just have a "spike" every Nth number as in analysis of forces after a catastrophe, you can reduce the number of records you have to check significantly.

不管怎样，还是有一些值得思考的东西。也许这会帮助你给未来的面试官一个深思熟虑的回答。我知道，如果有人问我这样一个问题来回应这样的问题，我会印象深刻——这将告诉我，他们正在考虑优化。只是要认识到，优化的可能性并不总是存在的。

一个非常简单的解决方案是遍历该数组100次。也就是O(n)

每次取出最大的数字(并将其值更改为最小值，以便在下一个迭代中看不到它，或者跟踪以前答案的索引(通过跟踪索引，原始数组可以有多个相同的数字))。经过100次迭代，就得到了最大的100个数字。