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。

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)

首先取1000个元素并将它们添加到一个max堆中。现在取出前最多100个元素并将其存储在某个地方。现在从文件中选择接下来的900个元素，并将它们与最后100个最高的元素一起添加到堆中。

一直重复这个过程，从堆中取出100个元素，从文件中添加900个元素。

从100个元素中最后选出的100个元素将从10亿个数字中选出最大的100个元素。

Recently I am adapting a theory that all the problems in the world could be solved with O(1). And even this one. It wasn't clear from the question what is the range of the numbers. If the numbers are it range from 1 to 10, then probably the the top 100 largest numbers will be a group of 10. The chance that the highest number will be picked out of the 1 billion numbers when the highest number is very small in compare to to 1 billion are very big. So I would give this as an answer in that interview.

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。

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。