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。
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
为什么有人想要使用链表而不是数组?
这只是一个原因——如果你需要一个链表数据结构,而你所使用的编程语言不支持指针。
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.
合并两个链表(特别是两个双链表)比合并两个数组快得多(假设合并是破坏性的)。前者取O(1),后者取O(n)。
编辑:澄清一下,我在这里指的是无序意义上的“合并”,而不是归并排序。也许"串联"这个词更合适。
Eric Lippert最近发表了一篇关于数组应该保守使用的原因之一的文章。
我将添加另一个-列表可以充当纯函数式数据结构。
例如,您可以让完全不同的列表共享相同的结束部分
a = (1 2 3 4, ....)
b = (4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 ...)
c = (3 4 ...)
例如:
b = 4 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> a
c = a.next.next
不需要把a指向的数据复制到b和c中。
这就是为什么它们在函数式语言中如此受欢迎的原因,函数式语言使用不可变变量——前置和尾部操作可以自由发生,而无需复制原始数据——当您将数据视为不可变时,这是非常重要的特性。
维基百科上有很好的章节介绍了它们的区别。
Linked lists have several advantages over arrays. Elements can be inserted into linked lists indefinitely, while an array will eventually either fill up or need to be resized, an expensive operation that may not even be possible if memory is fragmented. Similarly, an array from which many elements are removed may become wastefully empty or need to be made smaller. On the other hand, arrays allow random access, while linked lists allow only sequential access to elements. Singly-linked lists, in fact, can only be traversed in one direction. This makes linked lists unsuitable for applications where it's useful to look up an element by its index quickly, such as heapsort. Sequential access on arrays is also faster than on linked lists on many machines due to locality of reference and data caches. Linked lists receive almost no benefit from the cache. Another disadvantage of linked lists is the extra storage needed for references, which often makes them impractical for lists of small data items such as characters or boolean values. It can also be slow, and with a naïve allocator, wasteful, to allocate memory separately for each new element, a problem generally solved using memory pools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_list