两个选择:

(1)堆(priorityQueue)

维护最小堆的大小为100。遍历数组。一旦元素小于堆中的第一个元素，就替换它。

InSERT ELEMENT INTO HEAP: O（log100）
compare the first element: O(1)
There are n elements in the array, so the total would be O(nlog100), which is O(n)

(2)映射-约简模型。

这与hadoop中的单词计数示例非常相似。 映射工作:计算每个元素出现的频率或次数。 减约:获取顶部K元素。

通常，我会给招聘人员两个答案。他们喜欢什么就给什么。当然，映射缩减编码会很费事，因为您必须知道每个确切的参数。练习一下也无妨。 祝你好运。

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)

I would find out who had the time to put a billion numbers into an array and fire him. Must work for government. At least if you had a linked list you could insert a number into the middle without moving half a billion to make room. Even better a Btree allows for a binary search. Each comparison eliminates half of your total. A hash algorithm would allow you to populate the data structure like a checkerboard but not so good for sparse data. As it is your best bet is to have a solution array of 100 integers and keep track of the lowest number in your solution array so you can replace it when you come across a higher number in the original array. You would have to look at every element in the original array assuming it is not sorted to begin with.

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。

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。

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;
                        }
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }
}