你可以遍历这些数字，需要O(n)

只要发现一个大于当前最小值的值，就将新值添加到一个大小为100的循环队列中。

循环队列的最小值就是新的比较值。继续往队列中添加。如果已满，则从队列中提取最小值。

我用Python写了一个简单的解决方案，以防有人感兴趣。它使用bisect模块和一个临时返回列表，它保持排序。这类似于优先级队列实现。

import bisect

def kLargest(A, k):
    '''returns list of k largest integers in A'''
    ret = []
    for i, a in enumerate(A):
        # For first k elements, simply construct sorted temp list
        # It is treated similarly to a priority queue
        if i < k:
            bisect.insort(ret, a) # properly inserts a into sorted list ret
        # Iterate over rest of array
        # Replace and update return array when more optimal element is found
        else:
            if a > ret[0]:
                del ret[0] # pop min element off queue
                bisect.insort(ret, a) # properly inserts a into sorted list ret
    return ret

使用100,000,000个元素和最坏情况输入是一个排序列表:

>>> from so import kLargest
>>> kLargest(range(100000000), 100)
[99999900, 99999901, 99999902, 99999903, 99999904, 99999905, 99999906, 99999907,
 99999908, 99999909, 99999910, 99999911, 99999912, 99999913, 99999914, 99999915,
 99999916, 99999917, 99999918, 99999919, 99999920, 99999921, 99999922, 99999923,
 99999924, 99999925, 99999926, 99999927, 99999928, 99999929, 99999930, 99999931,
 99999932, 99999933, 99999934, 99999935, 99999936, 99999937, 99999938, 99999939,
 99999940, 99999941, 99999942, 99999943, 99999944, 99999945, 99999946, 99999947,
 99999948, 99999949, 99999950, 99999951, 99999952, 99999953, 99999954, 99999955,
 99999956, 99999957, 99999958, 99999959, 99999960, 99999961, 99999962, 99999963,
 99999964, 99999965, 99999966, 99999967, 99999968, 99999969, 99999970, 99999971,
 99999972, 99999973, 99999974, 99999975, 99999976, 99999977, 99999978, 99999979,
 99999980, 99999981, 99999982, 99999983, 99999984, 99999985, 99999986, 99999987,
 99999988, 99999989, 99999990, 99999991, 99999992, 99999993, 99999994, 99999995,
 99999996, 99999997, 99999998, 99999999]

我花了40秒计算1亿个元素，所以我不敢计算10亿个元素。为了公平起见，我给它提供了最坏情况的输入(具有讽刺意味的是，一个已经排序的数组)。

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

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。

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。

管理一个单独的列表是额外的工作，每次你找到另一个替代物时，你都必须在整个列表中移动东西。把它排序，选前100名。