最近我参加了一个面试,面试官要求我“编写一个程序,从一个包含10亿个数字的数组中找出100个最大的数字”。
我只能给出一个蛮力解决方案,即以O(nlogn)时间复杂度对数组进行排序,并取最后100个数字。
Arrays.sort(array);
面试官正在寻找一个更好的时间复杂度,我尝试了几个其他的解决方案,但都没有回答他。有没有更好的时间复杂度解决方案?
最近我参加了一个面试,面试官要求我“编写一个程序,从一个包含10亿个数字的数组中找出100个最大的数字”。
我只能给出一个蛮力解决方案,即以O(nlogn)时间复杂度对数组进行排序,并取最后100个数字。
Arrays.sort(array);
面试官正在寻找一个更好的时间复杂度,我尝试了几个其他的解决方案,但都没有回答他。有没有更好的时间复杂度解决方案?
当前回答
取十亿个数字中的前一百个,然后排序。现在只需遍历十亿,如果源数大于100中最小的数,则按排序顺序插入。你得到的结果更接近于O(n)除以集合的大小。
其他回答
Although in this question we should search for top 100 numbers, I will
generalize things and write x. Still, I will treat x as constant value.
n中最大的x元素:
我将调用返回值LIST。它是一个x元素的集合(在我看来应该是链表)
First x elements are taken from pool "as they come" and sorted in LIST (this is done in constant time since x is treated as constant - O( x log(x) ) time) For every element that comes next we check if it is bigger than smallest element in LIST and if is we pop out the smallest and insert current element to LIST. Since that is ordered list every element should find its place in logarithmic time (binary search) and since it is ordered list insertion is not a problem. Every step is also done in constant time ( O(log(x) ) time ).
那么,最坏的情况是什么?
xlog(x)+(n-x)(log(x)+1)=nlog(x)+n- x
最坏情况是O(n)时间。+1是检查数字是否大于LIST中最小的数字。平均情况的预期时间将取决于这n个元素的数学分布。
可能的改进
在最坏的情况下,这个算法可以稍微改进,但恕我直言(我无法证明这一点),这会降低平均行为。渐近行为是一样的。
该算法的改进在于,我们将不检查元素是否大于最小值。对于每个元素,我们将尝试插入它,如果它小于最小值,我们将忽略它。尽管如果我们只考虑我们将面临的最坏的情况,这听起来很荒谬
x log(x) + (n-x)log(x) = nlog(x)
操作。
对于这个用例,我没有看到任何进一步的改进。但是你必须问自己,如果我要对不同的x做多于log(n)次呢?显然,我们会以O(nlog (n))为单位对数组进行排序,并在需要时提取x元素。
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。
取十亿个数字中的前一百个,然后排序。现在只需遍历十亿,如果源数大于100中最小的数,则按排序顺序插入。你得到的结果更接近于O(n)除以集合的大小。
我对此的直接反应是使用堆,但有一种方法可以使用QuickSelect,而不需要在任何时候保留所有的输入值。
创建一个大小为200的数组,并用前200个输入值填充它。运行QuickSelect并丢弃低100个位置,留下100个空闲位置。读入接下来的100个输入值并再次运行QuickSelect。继续执行,直到以100个批次为单位运行整个输入。
最后是前100个值。对于N个值,您运行QuickSelect大约N/100次。每个快速选择的代价大约是某个常数的200倍,所以总代价是某个常数的2N倍。在我看来,输入的大小是线性的,不管我在这个解释中硬连接的参数大小是100。
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.