数组与链表

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

链表

它更可取的时候，它涉及到插入!基本上它所做的就是处理指针

1 -> 3 -> 4

插入(2)

1... 3... 4 ... 2

最后

1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4

一个箭头指向3点，另一个箭头指向2点

简单!

但是来自Array

| | 1 | 3 | 4

插入(2) | 1 | 3 | | 4 | | 1 | | 3 | 4 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |

任何人都可以想象出其中的不同! 对于4个索引，我们执行3个步骤

如果数组长度是一百万呢?数组有效吗? 答案是否定的!：）

删除也是一样! 在链表中，我们可以简单地使用指针并将对象类中的元素和next置空! 但对于数组，我们需要执行shiftLeft()

希望有帮助!：）

2013-08-30 19:31:15

其他回答

It's easier to store data of different sizes in a linked list. An array assumes every element is exactly the same size. As you mentioned, it's easier for a linked list to grow organically. An array's size needs to be known ahead of time, or re-created when it needs to grow. Shuffling a linked list is just a matter of changing what points to what. Shuffling an array is more complicated and/or takes more memory. As long as your iterations all happen in a "foreach" context, you don't lose any performance in iteration.

2008-10-03 13:40:05

对我来说是这样的，

Access Linked Lists allow only sequential access to elements. Thus the algorithmic complexities is order of O(n) Arrays allow random access to its elements and thus the complexity is order of O(1) Storage Linked lists require an extra storage for references. This makes them impractical for lists of small data items such as characters or boolean values. Arrays do not need an extra storage to point to next data item. Each element can be accessed via indexes. Size The size of Linked lists are dynamic by nature. The size of array is restricted to declaration. Insertion/Deletion Elements can be inserted and deleted in linked lists indefinitely. Insertion/Deletion of values in arrays are very expensive. It requires memory reallocation.

2010-10-30 10:57:19

链表