A more general question is if there are situations where one would prefer an O(f(n)) algorithm to an O(g(n)) algorithm even though g(n) << f(n) as n tends to infinity. As others have already mentioned, the answer is clearly "yes" in the case where f(n) = log(n) and g(n) = 1. It is sometimes yes even in the case that f(n) is polynomial but g(n) is exponential. A famous and important example is that of the Simplex Algorithm for solving linear programming problems. In the 1970s it was shown to be O(2^n). Thus, its worse-case behavior is infeasible. But -- its average case behavior is extremely good, even for practical problems with tens of thousands of variables and constraints. In the 1980s, polynomial time algorithms (such a Karmarkar's interior-point algorithm) for linear programming were discovered, but 30 years later the simplex algorithm still seems to be the algorithm of choice (except for certain very large problems). This is for the obvious reason that average-case behavior is often more important than worse-case behavior, but also for a more subtle reason that the simplex algorithm is in some sense more informative (e.g. sensitivity information is easier to extract).

A more general question is if there are situations where one would prefer an O(f(n)) algorithm to an O(g(n)) algorithm even though g(n) << f(n) as n tends to infinity. As others have already mentioned, the answer is clearly "yes" in the case where f(n) = log(n) and g(n) = 1. It is sometimes yes even in the case that f(n) is polynomial but g(n) is exponential. A famous and important example is that of the Simplex Algorithm for solving linear programming problems. In the 1970s it was shown to be O(2^n). Thus, its worse-case behavior is infeasible. But -- its average case behavior is extremely good, even for practical problems with tens of thousands of variables and constraints. In the 1980s, polynomial time algorithms (such a Karmarkar's interior-point algorithm) for linear programming were discovered, but 30 years later the simplex algorithm still seems to be the algorithm of choice (except for certain very large problems). This is for the obvious reason that average-case behavior is often more important than worse-case behavior, but also for a more subtle reason that the simplex algorithm is in some sense more informative (e.g. sensitivity information is easier to extract).

假设您正在嵌入式系统上实现一个黑名单，其中0到1,000,000之间的数字可能被列入黑名单。这就给你留下了两个选择:

使用1,000,000位的bitset 使用黑名单整数的排序数组，并使用二进制搜索来访问它们

对bitset的访问将保证常量访问。从时间复杂度来看，它是最优的。从理论和实践的角度来看(它是O(1)，常量开销极低)。

不过，你可能更喜欢第二种解决方案。特别是如果您希望黑名单整数的数量非常小，因为这样内存效率更高。

即使您不为内存稀缺的嵌入式系统开发，我也可以将任意限制从1,000,000增加到1,000,000,000,000，并提出相同的论点。那么bitset将需要大约125G的内存。保证最坏情况复杂度为O(1)可能无法说服您的老板为您提供如此强大的服务器。

在这里，我强烈倾向于二叉搜索(O(log n))或二叉树(O(log n))而不是O(1)位集。在实践中，最坏情况复杂度为O(n)的哈希表可能会击败所有这些算法。

在重新设计程序时，发现一个过程用O(1)而不是O(lgN)进行了优化，但如果不是这个程序的瓶颈，就很难理解O(1) alg。这样就不用用O(1)算法了 当O(1)需要大量的内存而你无法提供时，而O(lgN)的时间可以接受。

在n有界且O(1)算法的常数乘子高于log(n)上的界的任意点。例如，在哈希集中存储值是O(1)，但可能需要对哈希函数进行昂贵的计算。如果数据项可以简单地进行比较(相对于某些顺序)，并且n的边界是这样的，log n明显小于任何一项上的哈希计算，那么存储在平衡二叉树中可能比存储在哈希集中更快。

给已经好的答案锦上添花。一个实际的例子是postgres数据库中的哈希索引和b树索引。

哈希索引形成一个哈希表索引来访问磁盘上的数据，而btree顾名思义使用的是btree数据结构。

大O时间是O(1) vs O(logN)

目前不鼓励在postgres中使用哈希索引，因为在现实生活中，特别是在数据库系统中，实现无冲突的哈希是非常困难的(可能导致O(N)最坏情况的复杂性)，正因为如此，使它们具有崩溃安全性就更加困难了(在postgres中称为提前写日志- WAL)。

在这种情况下进行这种权衡，因为O(logN)对于索引来说已经足够好了，而实现O(1)非常困难，而且时间差并不重要。