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.

我用Python写了一个简单的解决方案，以防有人感兴趣。它使用bisect模块和一个临时返回列表，它保持排序。这类似于优先级队列实现。

import bisect

def kLargest(A, k):
    '''returns list of k largest integers in A'''
    ret = []
    for i, a in enumerate(A):
        # For first k elements, simply construct sorted temp list
        # It is treated similarly to a priority queue
        if i < k:
            bisect.insort(ret, a) # properly inserts a into sorted list ret
        # Iterate over rest of array
        # Replace and update return array when more optimal element is found
        else:
            if a > ret[0]:
                del ret[0] # pop min element off queue
                bisect.insort(ret, a) # properly inserts a into sorted list ret
    return ret

使用100,000,000个元素和最坏情况输入是一个排序列表:

>>> from so import kLargest
>>> kLargest(range(100000000), 100)
[99999900, 99999901, 99999902, 99999903, 99999904, 99999905, 99999906, 99999907,
 99999908, 99999909, 99999910, 99999911, 99999912, 99999913, 99999914, 99999915,
 99999916, 99999917, 99999918, 99999919, 99999920, 99999921, 99999922, 99999923,
 99999924, 99999925, 99999926, 99999927, 99999928, 99999929, 99999930, 99999931,
 99999932, 99999933, 99999934, 99999935, 99999936, 99999937, 99999938, 99999939,
 99999940, 99999941, 99999942, 99999943, 99999944, 99999945, 99999946, 99999947,
 99999948, 99999949, 99999950, 99999951, 99999952, 99999953, 99999954, 99999955,
 99999956, 99999957, 99999958, 99999959, 99999960, 99999961, 99999962, 99999963,
 99999964, 99999965, 99999966, 99999967, 99999968, 99999969, 99999970, 99999971,
 99999972, 99999973, 99999974, 99999975, 99999976, 99999977, 99999978, 99999979,
 99999980, 99999981, 99999982, 99999983, 99999984, 99999985, 99999986, 99999987,
 99999988, 99999989, 99999990, 99999991, 99999992, 99999993, 99999994, 99999995,
 99999996, 99999997, 99999998, 99999999]

我花了40秒计算1亿个元素，所以我不敢计算10亿个元素。为了公平起见，我给它提供了最坏情况的输入(具有讽刺意味的是，一个已经排序的数组)。

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。

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。

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。

从十亿个数字中找到前100个最好使用包含100个元素的最小堆。

首先用遇到的前100个数字对最小堆进行质数。Min-heap将前100个数字中最小的存储在根(顶部)。

现在，当你继续计算其他数字时，只将它们与根数(100中最小的数)进行比较。

如果遇到的新数字大于最小堆的根，则将根替换为该数字，否则忽略它。

作为在最小堆中插入新数字的一部分，堆中最小的数字将移到顶部(根)。

一旦我们遍历了所有的数字，我们将得到最小堆中最大的100个数字。