还记得乌龟和兔子的寓言吗?

从长远来看，乌龟赢了，但从短期来看，兔子赢了。

这就像O(logN)(乌龟)vs O(N)(野兔)。

如果两种方法的大o值不同，那么它们中的一种会在N的水平上获胜，但大o值没有说明N的大小。

我试图用c#和JavaScript给出简单的代码示例来解释。

C#

For List<int> numbers = new List<int> {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,12,543,7};

O(1)看起来像

return numbers.First();

O(n)看起来像

int result = 0;
foreach (int num in numbers)
{
  result += num;
}
return result;

O(nlog (n))是这样的

int result = 0;
foreach (int num in numbers)
{
    int index = numbers.Count - 1;
    while (index > 1)
    {
        // yeah, stupid, but couldn't come up with something more useful :-(
        result += numbers[index];
        index /= 2;
    }
}
return result;

O(n2)是这样的

int result = 0;
foreach (int outerNum in numbers)
{
    foreach (int innerNum in numbers)
    {
        result += outerNum * innerNum;
    }
}
return result;

O(n!)看起来，嗯，太累了，想不出任何简单的东西。 但我希望你能明白大意?

JavaScript

对于const数= [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,12,543,7];

O(1)看起来像

numbers[0];

O(n)看起来像

let result = 0;
for (num of numbers){
    result += num;
}

O(nlog (n))是这样的

let result = 0;
for (num of numbers){

    let index = numbers.length - 1;
    while (index > 1){
        // yeah, stupid, but couldn't come up with something more useful :-(
        result += numbers[index];
        index = Math.floor(index/2)
    }
}

O(n2)是这样的

let result = 0;
for (outerNum of numbers){
    for (innerNum of numbers){
        result += outerNum * innerNum;
    }
}

大多数Jon Bentley的书(例如Programming Pearls)都以一种非常实用的方式涵盖了这些内容。他的这次演讲中就包括了一个这样的快排分析。

虽然与这个问题并不完全相关，但Knuth提出了一个有趣的想法:在高中微积分课上教授Big-O符号，尽管我觉得这个想法相当古怪。

只是为了回应我上面帖子的一些评论:

Domenic - I'm on this site, and I care. Not for pedantry's sake, but because we - as programmers - typically care about precision. Using O( ) notation incorrectly in the style that some have done here renders it kind of meaningless; we may just as well say something takes n^2 units of time as O( n^2 ) under the conventions used here. Using the O( ) adds nothing. It's not just a small discrepancy between common usage and mathematical precision that I'm talking about, it's the difference between it being meaningful and it not.

我知道很多很多优秀的程序员都准确地使用这些术语。说“哦，我们是程序员，所以我们不在乎”会降低整个企业的成本。

一个接一个-嗯，不完全是，尽管我同意你的观点。对于任意大的n，它不是O(1)这是O()的定义。它只是表明O()对于有界n的适用性有限，在这里我们更愿意讨论所走的步数，而不是这个数字的界限。

告诉你8年前的log(n)意味着你必须把一个长度为nlog的东西切成两半的次数，让它变成大小为n=1:p

O(nlogn)通常是排序 O(n²)通常是比较所有元素对

堂。neufeld的答案非常好，但我可能会分两部分解释它:首先，大多数算法都属于O()的粗略层次结构。然后，你可以看看每一种算法，得出那种时间复杂度的典型算法是怎么做的。

出于实际目的，似乎唯一重要的O()是:

O(1) "constant time" - the time required is independent of the size of the input. As a rough category, I would include algorithms such as hash lookups and Union-Find here, even though neither of those are actually O(1). O(log(n)) "logarithmic" - it gets slower as you get larger inputs, but once your input gets fairly large, it won't change enough to worry about. If your runtime is ok with reasonably-sized data, you can swamp it with as much additional data as you want and it'll still be ok. O(n) "linear" - the more input, the longer it takes, in an even tradeoff. Three times the input size will take roughly three times as long. O(n log(n)) "better than quadratic" - increasing the input size hurts, but it's still manageable. The algorithm is probably decent, it's just that the underlying problem is more difficult (decisions are less localized with respect to the input data) than those problems that can be solved in linear time. If your input sizes are getting up there, don't assume that you could necessarily handle twice the size without changing your architecture around (eg by moving things to overnight batch computations, or not doing things per-frame). It's ok if the input size increases a little bit, though; just watch out for multiples. O(n^2) "quadratic" - it's really only going to work up to a certain size of your input, so pay attention to how big it could get. Also, your algorithm may suck -- think hard to see if there's an O(n log(n)) algorithm that would give you what you need. Once you're here, feel very grateful for the amazing hardware we've been gifted with. Not long ago, what you are trying to do would have been impossible for all practical purposes. O(n^3) "cubic" - not qualitatively all that different from O(n^2). The same comments apply, only more so. There's a decent chance that a more clever algorithm could shave this time down to something smaller, eg O(n^2 log(n)) or O(n^2.8...), but then again, there's a good chance that it won't be worth the trouble. (You're already limited in your practical input size, so the constant factors that may be required for the more clever algorithms will probably swamp their advantages for practical cases. Also, thinking is slow; letting the computer chew on it may save you time overall.) O(2^n) "exponential" - the problem is either fundamentally computationally hard or you're being an idiot. These problems have a recognizable flavor to them. Your input sizes are capped at a fairly specific hard limit. You'll know quickly whether you fit into that limit.

就是这样。还有很多其他的可能性在这些之间(或大于O(2^n))，但它们在实践中不经常发生，它们与这些中的任何一个在性质上没有太大的不同。三次算法已经有点牵强了;我之所以把它们包括进来，是因为我经常遇到它们，值得一提(例如矩阵乘法)。

这类算法到底发生了什么?我认为你有一个很好的开始，尽管有很多例子不符合这些特征。但对于上述情况，我认为通常是这样的:

O(1) - you're only looking at most at a fixed-size chunk of your input data, and possibly none of it. Example: the maximum of a sorted list. Or your input size is bounded. Example: addition of two numbers. (Note that addition of N numbers is linear time.) O(log n) - each element of your input tells you enough to ignore a large fraction of the rest of the input. Example: when you look at an array element in binary search, its value tells you that you can ignore "half" of your array without looking at any of it. Or similarly, the element you look at gives you enough of a summary of a fraction of the remaining input that you won't need to look at it. There's nothing special about halves, though -- if you can only ignore 10% of your input at each step, it's still logarithmic. O(n) - you do some fixed amount of work per input element. (But see below.) O(n log(n)) - there are a few variants. You can divide the input into two piles (in no more than linear time), solve the problem independently on each pile, and then combine the two piles to form the final solution. The independence of the two piles is key. Example: classic recursive mergesort. Each linear-time pass over the data gets you halfway to your solution. Example: quicksort if you think in terms of the maximum distance of each element to its final sorted position at each partitioning step (and yes, I know that it's actually O(n^2) because of degenerate pivot choices. But practically speaking, it falls into my O(n log(n)) category.) O(n^2) - you have to look at every pair of input elements. Or you don't, but you think you do, and you're using the wrong algorithm. O(n^3) - um... I don't have a snappy characterization of these. It's probably one of: You're multiplying matrices You're looking at every pair of inputs but the operation you do requires looking at all of the inputs again the entire graph structure of your input is relevant O(2^n) - you need to consider every possible subset of your inputs.

这些都不严谨。尤其是线性时间算法(O(n)):我可以举出很多例子，你必须看所有的输入，然后是一半，然后是一半，等等。或者反过来——将输入对折叠在一起，然后对输出进行递归。这些不符合上面的描述，因为你不是只看一次每个输入，但它仍然是线性时间。不过，在99.2%的情况下，线性时间意味着只查看一次每个输入。