为什么有人想要使用链表而不是数组?
毫无疑问,编码一个链表比使用数组要多一些工作,人们可能会想知道如何才能证明这些额外的工作是合理的。
我认为在链表中插入新元素是微不足道的,但在数组中这是一个主要的任务。与将数据存储在数组中相比,使用链表存储一组数据还有其他优点吗?
这个问题不是这个问题的重复,因为另一个问题是专门问一个特定的Java类,而这个问题是关于一般数据结构的。
为什么有人想要使用链表而不是数组?
毫无疑问,编码一个链表比使用数组要多一些工作,人们可能会想知道如何才能证明这些额外的工作是合理的。
我认为在链表中插入新元素是微不足道的,但在数组中这是一个主要的任务。与将数据存储在数组中相比,使用链表存储一组数据还有其他优点吗?
这个问题不是这个问题的重复,因为另一个问题是专门问一个特定的Java类,而这个问题是关于一般数据结构的。
当前回答
Arrays make sense where the exact number of items will be known, and where searching by index makes sense. For example, if I wanted to store the exact state of my video output at a given moment without compression I would probably use an array of size [1024][768]. This will provide me with exactly what I need, and a list would be much, much slower to get the value of a given pixel. In places where an array does not make sense there are generally better data types than a list to deal with data effectively.
其他回答
While many of you have touched upon major adv./dis of linked list vs array, most of the comparisons are how one is better/ worse than the other.Eg. you can do random access in array but not possible in linked list and others. However, this is assuming link lists and array are going to be applied in a similar application. However a correct answer should be how link list would be preferred over array and vice-versa in a particular application deployment. Suppose you want to implement a dictionary application, what would you use ? Array : mmm it would allow easy retrieval through binary search and other search algo .. but lets think how link list can be better..Say you want to search "Blob" in dictionary. Would it make sense to have a link list of A->B->C->D---->Z and then each list element also pointing to an array or another list of all words starting with that letter ..
A -> B -> C -> ...Z
| | |
| | [Cat, Cave]
| [Banana, Blob]
[Adam, Apple]
Now is the above approach better or a flat array of [Adam,Apple,Banana,Blob,Cat,Cave] ? Would it even be possible with array ? So a major advantage of link list is you can have an element not just pointing to the next element but also to some other link list/array/ heap/ or any other memory location. Array is a one flat contigous memory sliced into blocks size of the element it is going to store.. Link list on the other hand is a chunks of non-contigous memory units (can be any size and can store anything) and pointing to each other the way you want. Similarly lets say you are making a USB drive. Now would you like files to be saved as any array or as a link list ? I think you get the idea what I am pointing to :)
除了插入到列表中间更容易之外——从链表中间删除也比从数组中删除容易得多。
但坦率地说,我从未使用过链表。每当我需要快速插入和删除时,我也需要快速查找,所以我使用HashSet或Dictionary。
这实际上是一个效率问题,在链表中插入、删除或移动(而不是简单地交换)元素的开销是最小的,即操作本身是O(1),而不是O(n)。如果您大量操作数据列表,这可能会产生显著的差异。您可以根据对数据类型的操作方式选择数据类型,并为所使用的算法选择最有效的数据类型。
首先,在c++中,使用链表应该不会比使用数组更麻烦。对于链表,可以使用std::list或boost指针列表。链表与数组的关键问题是指针需要额外的空间和糟糕的随机访问。你应该使用链表,如果你
你不需要随机访问数据 您将添加/删除元素,特别是列表中间的元素
A widely unappreciated argument for ArrayList and against LinkedList is that LinkedLists are uncomfortable while debugging. The time spent by maintenance developers to understand the program, e.g. to find bugs, increases and IMHO does sometimes not justify the nanoseconds in performance improvements or bytes in memory consumption in enterprise applicatons. Sometimes (well, of course it depends on the type of applications), it's better to waste a few bytes but have an application which is more maintainable or easier to understand.
例如,在Java环境中,使用Eclipse调试器,调试ArrayList将显示一个非常容易理解的结构:
arrayList ArrayList<String>
elementData Object[]
[0] Object "Foo"
[1] Object "Foo"
[2] Object "Foo"
[3] Object "Foo"
[4] Object "Foo"
...
另一方面,查看LinkedList的内容并找到特定的对象变成了一个展开树的噩梦,更不用说过滤LinkedList内部信息所需的认知开销:
linkedList LinkedList<String>
header LinkedList$Entry<E>
element E
next LinkedList$Entry<E>
element E "Foo"
next LinkedList$Entry<E>
element E "Foo"
next LinkedList$Entry<E>
element E "Foo"
next LinkedList$Entry<E>
previous LinkedList$Entry<E>
...
previous LinkedList$Entry<E>
previous LinkedList$Entry<E>
previous LinkedList$Entry<E>