最近我参加了一个面试,面试官要求我“编写一个程序,从一个包含10亿个数字的数组中找出100个最大的数字”。

我只能给出一个蛮力解决方案,即以O(nlogn)时间复杂度对数组进行排序,并取最后100个数字。

Arrays.sort(array);

面试官正在寻找一个更好的时间复杂度,我尝试了几个其他的解决方案,但都没有回答他。有没有更好的时间复杂度解决方案?


当前回答

我对此的直接反应是使用堆,但有一种方法可以使用QuickSelect,而不需要在任何时候保留所有的输入值。

创建一个大小为200的数组,并用前200个输入值填充它。运行QuickSelect并丢弃低100个位置,留下100个空闲位置。读入接下来的100个输入值并再次运行QuickSelect。继续执行,直到以100个批次为单位运行整个输入。

最后是前100个值。对于N个值,您运行QuickSelect大约N/100次。每个快速选择的代价大约是某个常数的200倍,所以总代价是某个常数的2N倍。在我看来,输入的大小是线性的,不管我在这个解释中硬连接的参数大小是100。

其他回答

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)

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。

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。

这是谷歌或其他行业巨头提出的问题。也许下面的代码就是面试官想要的正确答案。 时间成本和空间成本取决于输入数组中的最大数量。对于32位int数组输入,最大空间成本是4 * 125M字节,时间成本是5 *十亿。

public class TopNumber {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        final int input[] = {2389,8922,3382,6982,5231,8934
                            ,4322,7922,6892,5224,4829,3829
                            ,6892,6872,4682,6723,8923,3492};
        //One int(4 bytes) hold 32 = 2^5 value,
        //About 4 * 125M Bytes
        //int sort[] = new int[1 << (32 - 5)];
        //Allocate small array for local test
        int sort[] = new int[1000];
        //Set all bit to 0
        for(int index = 0; index < sort.length; index++){
            sort[index] = 0;
        }
        for(int number : input){
            sort[number >>> 5] |= (1 << (number % 32));
        }
        int topNum = 0;
        outer:
        for(int index = sort.length - 1; index >= 0; index--){
            if(0 != sort[index]){
                for(int bit = 31; bit >= 0; bit--){
                    if(0 != (sort[index] & (1 << bit))){
                        System.out.println((index << 5) + bit);
                        topNum++;
                        if(topNum >= 3){
                            break outer;
                        }
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

可能的改进。

如果文件包含十亿的数字,读取它可能会很长…

为了提高工作效率,你可以:

将文件分成n个部分,创建n个线程,让n个线程在各自的部分中寻找最大的100个数字(使用优先级队列),最后得到所有线程输出的最大的100个数字。 使用像hadoop这样的解决方案,使用集群来完成这样的任务。在这里,您可以进一步分割文件,并更快地输出10亿(或10^12)个数字的文件。